These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: CT colonography: automated measurement of colonic polyps compared with manual techniques--human in vitro study.
    Author: Taylor SA, Slater A, Halligan S, Honeyfield L, Roddie ME, Demeshski J, Amin H, Burling D.
    Journal: Radiology; 2007 Jan; 242(1):120-8. PubMed ID: 17105850.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To prospectively investigate the relative accuracy and reproducibility of manual and automated computer software measurements by using polyps of known size in a human colectomy specimen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained for the study; written consent for use of the surgical specimen was obtained. A colectomy specimen containing 27 polyps from a 16-year-old male patient with familial adenomatous polyposis was insufflated, submerged in a container with solution, and scanned at four-section multi-detector row computed tomography (CT). A histopathologist measured the maximum dimension of all polyps in the opened specimen. Digital photographs and line drawings were produced to aid CT-histologic measurement correlation. A novice (radiographic technician) and an experienced (radiologist) observer independently estimated polyp diameter with three methods: manual two-dimensional (2D) and manual three-dimensional (3D) measurement with software calipers and automated measurement with software (automatic). Data were analyzed with paired t tests and Bland-Altman limits of agreement. RESULTS: Seven polyps (<or=6-mm diameter) could not be extracted by using the software; 20 polyps (5-15-mm diameter) remained for analysis. Automated measurement was not significantly different from histologic size for the experienced reader (mean difference, 0.63 mm; P=.06) or novice reader (mean difference, 0.58 mm; P=.12). With manual 2D measurement and manual 3D measurement, the experienced reader (1.21-mm mean difference, P<.001, and 0.68-mm mean difference, P=.03, respectively) and novice reader (1.54-mm mean difference, P<.001, and 0.84-mm mean difference, P=.002, respectively) significantly underestimated polyp size. Interobserver agreement was good and similar for all three methods (95% limits of agreement span, approximately 2.5 mm). Intraobserver agreement was related to reader experience, with differences of up to 2.5 mm within expected limits of agreement. CONCLUSION: For polyps smaller than 1 cm, measurement differences of up to 2.5 mm are within the expected limits of inter- and intraobserver agreement for all measurement techniques. Automated and manual 3D polyp measurements are more accurate than manual 2D measurements.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]