| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Gastrointestinal Imaging |
1 From the Department of Radiological Sciences, University of Rome–La Sapienza, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale Regina Elena 324, Rome, Italy 00161 (R.I., A.L., C.C., F.M., S.T., F.P., R.P.); and Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (J.A.B.). From the 2002 RSNA scientific assembly. Received October 30, 2002; revision requested January 9, 2003; final revision received April 8; accepted April 30. Address correspondence to R.I. (e-mail: riannaccone@tiscali.it).
PURPOSE: To compare the performance of lower-dose multi–detector row helical computed tomographic (CT) colonography with that of conventional colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal lesions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty-eight patients underwent multi–detector row helical CT colonography (beam collimation, 4 x 2.5 mm; table feed, 17.5 mm/sec; voltage, 140 kV; and effective dose, 10 mAs) followed by conventional colonoscopy. Conventional colonoscopy served as the reference standard. Two radiologists interpreted CT colonographic images to assess the presence of polyps or carcinomas. Sensitivity was calculated on both a per-polyp and a per-patient basis. In the latter, specificity and positive and negative predictive values were also calculated. Weighted CT dose index was calculated on the basis of measurements obtained in a standard body phantom. Effective dose was estimated by using commercially available software.
RESULTS: CT colonography correctly depicted all 22 carcinomas (sensitivity, 100%) and 52 of 74 polyps (sensitivity, 70.3%). Sensitivity for detection was 100% in all 13 polyps 10 mm or larger in diameter, 83.3% in 20 of 24 polyps 6–9 mm, and 51.3% in 19 of 37 lesions 5 mm or smaller. With regard to the per-patient analysis, CT colonography had a sensitivity of 96.0%, a specificity of 96.6%, a positive predictive value of 94.1%, and a negative predictive value of 97.7%. The total weighted CT dose index for combined prone and supine acquisitions was 2.74 mGy. The simulated effective doses for complete CT colonography were 1.8 mSv in men and 2.4 mSv in women.
CONCLUSION: Lower-dose multi–detector row helical CT colonography ensures substantial dose reduction while maintaining excellent sensitivity for detection of colorectal carcinomas and polyps larger than 6 mm in diameter.
© RSNA, 2003
Index terms: Cancer screening • Colon, CT, 75.12115 • Colon neoplasms, 75.311, 75.321 • Computed tomography (CT), multi–detector row, 75.12115
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E J HALL and D J BRENNER Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology Br. J. Radiol., May 1, 2008; 81(965): 362 - 378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Sosna, T. Sella, O. Sy, P. T. Lavin, R. Eliahou, S. Fraifeld, and E. Libson Critical Analysis of the Performance of Double-Contrast Barium Enema for Detecting Colorectal Polyps >= 6 mm in the Era of CT Colonography Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2008; 190(2): 374 - 385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. J. M. Tolan, E. M. Armstrong, and A. H. Chapman Replacing Barium Enema with CT Colonography in Patients Older Than 70 Years: The Importance of Detecting Extracolonic Abnormalities Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2007; 189(5): 1104 - 1111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A SLATER Alteration in bowel habit Imaging, December 1, 2006; 18(4): 208 - 217. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Wessling, R. Fischbach, A. Borchert, H. Kugel, T. Allkemper, N. Osada, and W. Heindel Detection of Colorectal Polyps: Comparison of Multi-Detector Row CT and MR Colonography in a Colon Phantom Radiology, October 1, 2006; 241(1): 125 - 131. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Graser, B. J. Wintersperger, C. Suess, M. F. Reiser, and C. R. Becker Dose reduction and image quality in MDCT colonography using tube current modulation. Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2006; 187(3): 695 - 701. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Bhalla Invited Commentary RadioGraphics, July 1, 2006; 26(4): 1117 - 1118. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Yasumoto, T. Murakami, H. Yamamoto, M. Hori, R. Iannaccone, T. Kim, H. Abe, M. Kuwabara, K. Yamasaki, N. Kikkawa, et al. Assessment of Two 3D MDCT Colonography Protocols for Observation of Colorectal Polyps Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2006; 186(1): 85 - 89. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Halligan, D. G. Altman, S. A. Taylor, S. Mallett, J. J. Deeks, C. I. Bartram, and W. Atkin CT Colonography in the Detection of Colorectal Polyps and Cancer: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Proposed Minimum Data Set for Study Level Reporting Radiology, December 1, 2005; 237(3): 893 - 904. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Iannaccone, C. Catalano, F. Mangiapane, T. Murakami, A. Lamazza, E. Fiori, A. Schillaci, D. Marin, I. Nofroni, M. Hori, et al. Colorectal Polyps: Detection with Low-Dose Multi-Detector Row Helical CT Colonography versus Two Sequential Colonoscopies Radiology, December 1, 2005; 237(3): 927 - 937. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Macari and E. J. Bini CT Colonography: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going? Radiology, December 1, 2005; 237(3): 819 - 833. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M B Frenz and A S Mee Diagnostic radiation exposure and cancer risk Gut, June 1, 2005; 54(6): 889 - 890. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L Bogoni, P Cathier, M Dundar, A Jerebko, S Lakare, J Liang, S Periaswamy, M E Baker, and M Macari Computer-aided detection (CAD) for CT colonography: a tool to address a growing need Br. J. Radiol., January 1, 2005; 78(suppl_1): S57 - S62. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R Iannaccone, A Laghi, C Catalano, F Mangiapane, D Marin, and R Passariello Computed tomography colonography: colon examination or Pandora's box Gut, June 1, 2004; 53(6): 915 - 915. [Full Text]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
