Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Perceptive errors in CT colonography

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Published results to date have indicated a good per patient sensitivity of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) for colorectal cancer and for polyps measuring 10 mm or more together with a very good specificity. Sensitivity and specificity for polyps in the range of 6–10 mm are moderate. These results, however, can be achieved only with meticulous attention to technique including adequate colonic distention, and acquisition of supine and prone thin-section computed tomographic (CT) images. Moreover, there is a significant learning curve involved in the interpretation of CTC studies, with performance statistics improving with operator experience. Radiologists must be comfortable in reporting directly from workstation monitors and have access to and be familiar with software for multiplanar and endoluminal reconstructions. In addition to maximize polyp detection and minimize false positive results, reporting radiologists must have a working knowledge of normal colorectal anatomy and pathology on CTC and be familiar with potential pitfalls in interpretation. Besides the description of several possible causes for perceptive errors, also a literature search of perceptive errors in CTC is included in this paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.
Fig. 9.
Fig. 10.
Fig. 11.
Fig. 12.
Fig. 13.
Fig. 14.
Fig. 15.
Fig. 16.
Fig. 17.
Fig. 18.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sosna J, Morrin MM, Kruskal JB, et al. (2003) CT colonography of colorectal polyps: a metaanalysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181(6):1593–1598

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Halligan S, Altman DG, Taylor SA, et al. (2005) CT colonography in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: systematic review, meta-analysis, and proposed minimum data set for study level reporting. Radiology 237(3):893–904

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mulhall BP, Veerappan GR, Jackson JL (2005) Meta-analysis: computed tomographic colonography. Ann Int Med 142(8):635–650

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Atkin WS, Morson BC, Cuzick J (1992) Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after excision of rectosigmoid adenomas. N Engl J Med 326(10):658–662

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. O’Brien MJ, Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, et al. (1990) Patient and polyp characteristics associated with high-grade dysplasia in colorectal adenomas. Gastroenterology 98(2):371–379

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Simons BD, Morrison AS, Lev R, et al. (1992) Relationship of polyps to cancer of the large intestine. J Natl Cancer Inst 84(12):962–966

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Waye JD, Lewis BS, Frankel A, et al. (1988) Small colon polyps. Am J Gastroenterol 83(2):120–122

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Macari M, Bini EJ, Jacobs SL, et al. (2004) Significance of missed polyps at CT colonography. Am J Roentgenol 183(1):127–134

    Google Scholar 

  9. Arnesen RB, Adamsen S, Svendsen LB, et al. (2005) Missed lesions and false-positive findings on computed-tomographic colonography: a controlled prospective analysis. Endoscopy 37(10):937–944

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Aldridge AJ, Simson JN (2001) Histological assessment of colorectal adenomas by size. Are polyps less than 10 mm in size clinically important? Eur J Surg 167(10):777–781

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Nusko G, Mansmann U, tendorf-Hofmann A, et al. (1997) Risk of invasive carcinoma in colorectal adenomas assessed by size and site. Int J Colorectal Dis 12(5):267–271

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Huang CS, O’Brien MJ, Yang S, et al. (2004) Hyperplastic polyps, serrated adenomas, and the serrated polyp neoplasia pathway. Am J Gastroenterol 99(11):2242–2255

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, Wilson LA, et al. (2003) Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 125(2):311–319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349(23):2191–2200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D, et al. (2005) Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 365(9456):305–311

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC, et al. (2004) Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 291(14):1713–1719

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. van Gelder RE, Nio CY, Florie J, et al. (2004) Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 127(1):41–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fidler JL, Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, et al. (2004) Understanding interpretive errors in radiologists learning computed tomography colonography. Acad Radiol 11(7):750–756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Svensson MH, Svensson E, Lasson A, et al. (2002) Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy: prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease. Radiology 222(2):337–345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. van Gelder RE, Birnie E, Florie J, et al. (2004) CT colonography and colonoscopy: assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study. Radiology 233(2):328–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Macari M, Lavelle M, Pedrosa I, et al. (2001) Effect of different bowel preparations on residual fluid at CT colonography. Radiology 218(1):274–277

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Zalis ME, Hahn PF (2001) Digital subtraction bowel cleansing in CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 176(3):646–648

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Gryspeerdt S, Lefere P, Herman M, et al. (2005) CT colonography with fecal tagging after incomplete colonoscopy. Eur Radiol 15(6):1192–1202

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Marrannes J, et al. (2005) CT colonography after fecal tagging with a reduced cathartic cleansing and a reduced volume of barium. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184(6):1836–1842

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Serlie IWO, Truyen R, Florie J, et al. (2003) Computed cleansing for virtual colonoscopy using a three-material transition model. In: Peters TM, Ellis RE, (eds). Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention—MICCAI 2003. Proceedings of the 6th international conference in Montreal, Canada, November 15–18, part 2. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2879, pp 175–183. 3. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York

  26. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JH (2003) Electronic cleansing and stool tagging in CT colonography: advantages and pitfalls with primary three-dimensional evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181(3):799–805

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Johnson CD, Dachman AH (2000) CT colonography: the next colon screening examination? Radiology 216(2):331–341

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Goh V, et al. (2003) Optimizing colonic distention for multi-detector row CT colonography: effect of hyoscine butylbromide and rectal balloon catheter. Radiology 229(1):99–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rogalla P, Lembcke A, Ruckert JC, et al. (2005) Spasmolysis at CT colonography: butyl scopolamine versus glucagon. Radiology 236(1):184–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Morrin MM, Farrell RJ, Keogan MT, et al. (2002) CT colonography: colonic distention improved by dual positioning but not intravenous glucagon. Eur Radiol 12(3):525–530

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Yee J, Hung RK, Akerkar GA, et al. (1999) The usefulness of glucagon hydrochloride for colonic distention in CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 173(1):169–172

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Church J, Delaney C (2003) Randomized, controlled trial of carbon dioxide insufflation during colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 46(3):322–326

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Grant DS, Bartram CI, Heron CW (1986) A preliminary study of the possible benefits of using carbon dioxide insufflation during double-contrast barium enema. Br J Radiol 59(698):190–191

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Welch TJ, et al. (2000) Optimization of CT colonography technique: prospective trial in 180 patients. Radiology 216(3):704–711

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, et al. (2003) Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences. Radiology 227(2):378–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Saunders BP, et al. (2003) Acceptance by patients of multidetector CT colonography compared with barium enema examinations, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181(4):913–921

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Vos FM, van Gelder RE, Serlie IW, et al. (2003) Three-dimensional display modes for CT colonography: conventional 3D virtual colonoscopy versus unfolded cube projection. Radiology 228(3):878–885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Burling D, Taylor SA, Halligan S, et al. (2006) Automated insufflation of carbon dioxide for MDCT colonography: distension and patient experience compared with manual insufflation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186(1):96–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Maccarty RL, et al. (1999) CT colonography: potential pitfalls and problem-solving techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172(5):1271–1278

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Macari M, Megibow AJ (2001) Pitfalls of using three-dimensional CT colonography with two-dimensional imaging correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176(1):137–143

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Gluecker TM, Fletcher JG, Welch TJ, et al. (2004) Characterization of lesions missed on interpretation of CT colonography using a 2D search method. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182(4):881–889

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Park SH, Ha HK, Kim MJ, et al. (2005) False-negative results at multi-detector row CT colonography: multivariate analysis of causes for missed lesions. Radiology 235(2):495–502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Bartram CI (2003) CT colonography: methods, pathology and pitfalls. Clin Radiol 58(3):179–190

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. O’Connor SD, Summers RM, Choi JR, et al. (2006) Oral contrast adherence to polyps on CT colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 30(1):51–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Laks S, Macari M, Bini EJ (2004) Positional change in colon polyps at CT colonography. Radiology 231(3):761–766

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Chen JC, Dachman AH (2006) Cecal mobility: a potential pitfall of CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186(4):1086–1089

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Juchems MS, Fleiter TR, Pauls S, et al. (2006) CT colonography: comparison of a colon dissection display versus 3D endoluminal view for the detection of polyps. Eur Radiol 16(1):68–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Hoppe H, Quattropani C, Spreng A, et al. (2004) Virtual colon dissection with CT colonography compared with axial interpretation and conventional colonoscopy: preliminary results. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182(5):1151–1158

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Oto A, Gelebek V, Oguz BS, et al. (2003) CT attenuation of colorectal polypoid lesions: evaluation of contrast enhancement in CT colonography. Eur Radiol 13(7):1657–1663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. van Gelder RE, Florie J, Nio CY, et al. (2006) A comparison of primary two- and three-dimensional methods to review computed tomographic colonography. Eur Radiol [in press]

  51. Fidler JL, Johnson CD, Maccarty RL, et al. (2002) Detection of flat lesions in the colon with CT colonography. Abdom Imaging 27(3):292–300

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Pickhardt PJ, Nugent PA, Choi JR, et al. (2004) Flat colorectal lesions in asymptomatic adults: implications for screening with CT virtual colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183(5):1343–1347

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Hurlstone DP, Cross SS, Adam I, et al. (2003) A prospective clinicopathological and endoscopic evaluation of flat and depressed colorectal lesions in the United Kingdom. Am J Gastroenterol 98(11):2543–2549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Rembacken BJ, Fujii T, Cairns A, et al. (2000) Flat and depressed colonic neoplasms: a prospective study of 1000 colonoscopies in the UK. Lancet 355(9211):1211–1214

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Wolber RA, Owen DA (1991) Flat adenomas of the colon. Hum Pathol 22(1):70–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Maccarty RL, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, et al. (2006) Occult colorectal polyps on CT colonography: implications for surveillance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186(5):1380–1383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Kudo S (1993) Endoscopic mucosal resection of flat and depressed types of early colorectal cancer. Endoscopy 25(7):455–461

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Kudo S, Tamure S, Nakajima T, et al. (1995) Depressed type of colorectal cancer. Endoscopy 27(1):54–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Rubio C, Watanabe T, Masaki T, et al. (1997) Histologic differences between flat tubular colorectal neoplasias in Japan and Sweden. In Vivo 11(1):93–94

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Rubio CA, Kumagai J, Kanamori T, et al. (1995) Flat adenomas and flat adenocarcinomas of the colorectal mucosa in Japanese and Swedish patients. Comparative histologic study. Dis Colon Rectum 38(10):1075–1079

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Saitoh Y, Waxman I, West AB, et al. (2001) Prevalence and distinctive biologic features of flat colorectal adenomas in a North American population. Gastroenterology 120(7):1657–1665

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Tsuda S, Veress B, Toth E, et al. (2002) Flat and depressed colorectal tumours in a southern Swedish population: a prospective chromoendoscopic and histopathological study. Gut 51(4):550–555

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Park SH, Ha HK, Kim AY, et al. (2006) Flat polyps of the colon: detection with 16-MDCT colonography–preliminary results. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186(6):1611–1617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Macari M, Bini EJ, Xue X, et al. (2002) Colorectal neoplasms: prospective comparison of thin-section low-dose multi-detector row CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection. Radiology 224(2):383–392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Rex DK, Vining D, Kopecky KK (1999) An initial experience with screening for colon polyps using spiral CT with and without CT colography (virtual colonoscopy). Gastrointest Endosc 50(3):309–313

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Yee J, Akerkar GA, Hung RK, et al. (2001) Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients. Radiology 219(3):685–692

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D, et al. (2004) CT colonography: effect of experience and training on reader performance. Eur Radiol 14(6):1025–1033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. [Blinded for review]. Performance of radiographers in the evaluation of CT colonography (in press)

  69. Bodily KD, Fletcher JG, Engelby T, et al. (2005) Nonradiologists as second readers for intraluminal findings at CT colonography. Acad Radiol 12(1):67–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Burling D, Halligan S, Altman DG, et al. (2006) CT colonography interpretation times: effect of reader experience, fatigue, and scan findings in a multi-centre setting. Eur Radiol 16(8):1745–1749

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. [Blinded for review]. Effect of directed training on reader performance for CT colonography: multi-center study (in press)

  72. Summers RM, Yao J, Pickhardt PJ, et al. (2005) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy computer-aided polyp detection in a screening population. Gastroenterology 129(6):1832–1844

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    C. Y. Nio, A. H. de Vries & J. Stoker

Authors
  1. C. Y. Nio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. H. de Vries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Stoker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Y. Nio.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nio, C.Y., de Vries, A.H. & Stoker, J. Perceptive errors in CT colonography. Abdom Imaging 32, 556–570 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-006-9170-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-006-9170-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation