TY - JOUR
T1 - Computed tomography colonography
T2 - Automated diameter and volume measurement of colonic polyps compared with a manual technique - In vitro study
AU - Burling, David
AU - Halligan, Steve
AU - Roddie, Mary E.
AU - McQuillan, Justine
AU - Honeyfield, Lesley
AU - Amin, Hamdan
AU - Dehmeshki, Jamshid
AU - Taylor, Stuart A.
AU - McFarland, Elizabeth G.
PY - 2005
Y1 - 2005
N2 - Objective: To investigate inter- and intraobserver agreement of automated measurement of polyp diameter in vitro. Methods: Two phantoms ("QRM" and "Whiting") containing simulated polyps of known diameter and volume were scanned using 16-detector row computed tomography. Two observers estimated polyp diameter using 3 methods: software calipers ("manual") , freehand boundary identification ("semiautomatic"), and automated software segmentation ("fully automatic"). Results: Intraobserver 95% limits of agreement for diameter were narrowest for the fully automatic method (QRM span: 0.39 mm, 0.48 mm; Whiting span: 0.24 mm, 0 mm). Manual estimates were approximately 10 times wider (QRM span: 3.57 mm, 3.21 mm; Whiting span: 3.2 mm, 2.02 mm). Volume estimates were narrowest for the fully automatic method (span: 24.2 mm3, 24.1 mm3 vs. 97.9 mm3, 102.9 mm 3 for semiautomatic measurement). Interobserver agreement for diameter was narrowest for the fully automatic method (QRM span: 0.12 mm, Whiting span: 0.16 mm), with the manual method approximately 18 times wider (QRM span: 2.87 mm, Whiting span: 2.18 mm). Conclusion: Fully automated measurement of polyp diameter and volume is technically feasible and results in superior inter- and intraobserver agreement.
AB - Objective: To investigate inter- and intraobserver agreement of automated measurement of polyp diameter in vitro. Methods: Two phantoms ("QRM" and "Whiting") containing simulated polyps of known diameter and volume were scanned using 16-detector row computed tomography. Two observers estimated polyp diameter using 3 methods: software calipers ("manual") , freehand boundary identification ("semiautomatic"), and automated software segmentation ("fully automatic"). Results: Intraobserver 95% limits of agreement for diameter were narrowest for the fully automatic method (QRM span: 0.39 mm, 0.48 mm; Whiting span: 0.24 mm, 0 mm). Manual estimates were approximately 10 times wider (QRM span: 3.57 mm, 3.21 mm; Whiting span: 3.2 mm, 2.02 mm). Volume estimates were narrowest for the fully automatic method (span: 24.2 mm3, 24.1 mm3 vs. 97.9 mm3, 102.9 mm 3 for semiautomatic measurement). Interobserver agreement for diameter was narrowest for the fully automatic method (QRM span: 0.12 mm, Whiting span: 0.16 mm), with the manual method approximately 18 times wider (QRM span: 2.87 mm, Whiting span: 2.18 mm). Conclusion: Fully automated measurement of polyp diameter and volume is technically feasible and results in superior inter- and intraobserver agreement.
KW - Colon
KW - Colonography
KW - Colonoscopy
KW - Computed tomography
KW - Computer-aided detection
KW - Neoplasms
KW - Phantom studies
KW - Virtual
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=19544368146&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/01.rct.0000160985.66259.96
DO - 10.1097/01.rct.0000160985.66259.96
M3 - Article
C2 - 15891512
AN - SCOPUS:19544368146
SN - 0363-8715
VL - 29
SP - 387
EP - 393
JO - Journal of computer assisted tomography
JF - Journal of computer assisted tomography
IS - 3
ER -