CT-Kolografie: Vergleich zweier Visualisierungsalgorithmen an einem Screeningkollektiv

PURPOSE: The purpose of this multicenter study was to compare a dissection display and an endoluminal display for CT colonography (CTC) by means of detection rates and evaluation time in a screening collective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 4 blinded readers evaluated CTC datasets from 42 patients with 55 endoscopically confirmed polyps. The datasets were read in a randomized order using two different 3D visualization methods (endoluminal view vs. dissection display; EBW 2.0.1, Philips Medical Systems, Best/NL). Patients underwent cathartic cleansing as well as stool and fluid tagging. All readers except one were experienced in performing CTC. The per-lesion/per-patient sensitivity, per-patient specificity, and evaluation time were calculated. RESULTS: The overall per-lesion sensitivity using the dissection display (and endoluminal view) was 60 % (53 %) for reader 1, 58 % (60 %) for reader 2, 67 % (71 %) for reader 3 and 55 % (58 %) for reader 4. The per-patient sensitivity using the dissection display (and endoluminal view) was 85 % (85 %) for reader 1, 80 % (85 %) for reader 2, 95 % (90 %) for reader 3 and 80 % (80 %) for reader 4. The per-patient specificity was 68 % with dissection view (77 % endoluminal view) for reader 1, 82 % (82 %) for reader 2, 59 % (59 %) for reader 3 and 82 % (73 %) for reader 4. The experienced readers were significantly faster using the perspective-filet view. CONCLUSION: Using a dissection display of CTC datasets does not result in superior detection rates for polyps if datasets are stool and fluid-tagged. 3 out of 4 readers evaluated the datasets significantly faster with the dissection display.