Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate feasibility and reproducibility of quantitative assessment of colonic morphology on CT colonography (CTC). CTC datasets from 60 patients with optimal colonic distension were assessed using prototype software. Metrics potentially associated with poor endoscopic performance were calculated for the total colon and each segment including: length, volume, tortuosity (number of high curvature points <90°), and compactness (volume of box containing centerline divided by centerline length). Sigmoid apex height relative to the lumbosacral junction was also measured. Datasets were quantified twice each, and intra-reader reliability was evaluated using concordance correlation coefficient and Bland–Altman plot. Complete quantitative datasets including the five proposed metrics were generated from 58 of 60 (97 %) CTC examinations. The sigmoid and transverse segments were the longest (55.9 and 51.4 cm), had the largest volumes (0.410 and 0.609 L), and were the most tortuous (3.39 and 2.75 high curvature points) and least compact (3347 and 3595 mm2), noting high inter-patient variability for all metrics. Mean height of the sigmoid apex was 6.7 cm, also with high inter-patient variability (SD 6.8 cm). Intra-reader reliability was high for total and segmental lengths and sigmoid apex height (CCC = 0.9991) with excellent repeatability coefficient (CR = 3.0–3.3). There was low percent variance of metrics dependent upon length (median 5 %). Detailed automated quantitative assessment of colonic morphology on routine CTC datasets is feasible and reproducible, requiring minimal reader interaction.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams C, Cardwell C, Cook C, Edwards R, Atkin WS, Morton DG (2003) Effect of hysterectomy status on polyp detection rates at screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 57(7):848–853
Anderson JC, Gonzalez JD, Messina CR, Pollack BJ (2000) Factors that predict incomplete colonoscopy: thinner is not always better. Am J Gastroenterol 95(10):2784–2787
Anderson JC, Messina CR, Cohn W et al (2001) Factors predictive of difficult colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 54(5):558–562
Bowles CJ, Leicester R, Romaya C, Swarbrick E, Williams CB, Epstein O (2004) A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? Gut 53(2):277–283
Church JM (1994) Complete colonoscopy: how often? And if not, why not? Am J Gastroenterol 89(4):556–560
Cirocco WC, Rusin LC (1995) Factors that predict incomplete colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 38(9):964–968
Dafnis G, Granath F, Påhlman L, Ekbom A, Blomqvist P (2005) Patient factors influencing the completion rate in colonoscopy. Dig Liver Dis 37(2):113–118
Eickhoff A, Pickhardt PJ, Hartmann D, Riemann JF (2010) Colon anatomy based on CT colonography and fluoroscopy: impact on looping, straightening and ancillary manoeuvres in colonoscopy. Dig Liver Dis 42(4):291–296
Hanson ME, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Pfau PR (2007) Anatomic factors predictive of incomplete colonoscopy based on findings at CT colonography. AJR 189(4):774–779
Hsieh YH, Kuo CS, Tseng KC, Lin HJ (2008) Factors that predict cecal insertion time during sedated colonoscopy: the role of waist circumference. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 23(2):215–217
Khashab M, Pickhardt P, Kim D, Rex D (2009) Colorectal anatomy in adults at computed tomography colonography: normal distribution and the effect of age, sex, and body mass index. Endoscopy 41(8):674–678
Leyden JE, Doherty GA, Hanley A et al (2011) Quality of colonoscopy performance among gastroenterology and surgical trainees: a need for common training standards for all trainees? Endoscopy 43(11):935–940
Lin L (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45(1):255–268
Punwani S, Halligan S, Tolan D, Taylor SA, Hawkes D (2009) Quantitative assessment of colonic movement between prone and supine patient positions during CT colonography. Br J Radiol 82(978):475–481
Radaelli F, Meucci G, Sgroi G, Minoli G (2008) Technical performance of colonoscopy: the key role of sedation/analgesia and other quality indicators. Am J Gastroenterol 103(5):1122–1130
Rowland RS, Bell GD, Dogramadzi S, Allen C (1999) Colonoscopy aided by magnetic 3D imaging: is the technique sufficiently sensitive to detect differences between men and women? Med Biol Eng Comput 37(6):673–679
Sadahiro S, Ohmura T, Saito T, Suzuki S (1991) Relationship between length and surface area of each segment of the large intestine and the incidence of colorectal cancer. Cancer 68(1):84–87
Sadahiro S, Ohmura T, Yamada Y, Saito T, Taki Y (1992) Analysis of length and surface area of each segment of the large intestine according to age, sex and physique. Surg Radiol Anat 14(3):251–257
Salamone I, Buda C, Arcadi T, Cutugno G, Picciotto M (2011) Role of virtual colonoscopy following incomplete colonoscopy: our experience. G Chir 32(8–9):388–393
Saunders BP, Halligan S, Jobling C et al (1995) Can barium enema indicate when colonoscopy will be difficult? Clin Radiol 50(5):318–321
Saunders BP, Fukumoto M, Halligan S et al (1996) Why is colonoscopy more difficult in women? Gastrointest Endosc 43(2 Pt 1):124–126
Shah SG, Brooker JC, Thapar C, Williams CB, Saunders BP (2002) Patient pain during colonoscopy: an analysis using real-time magnetic endoscope imaging. Endoscopy 34(6):435–440
Takahashi Y, Tanaka H, Kinjo M, Sakumoto K (2005) Prospective evaluation of factors predicting difficulty and pain during sedation-free colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 48(6):1295–1300
Vaz S, Falkmer T, Passmore AE, Parson R, Andreou P (2013) The case for using the repeatability coefficient when calculating test–retest reliability. PLoS ONE 8(9):e73990
Waye J (2000) Completing colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 95(10):2681–2682
Yucel C, Lev-Toaff AS, Moussa N, Durrani H (2008) CT colonography for incomplete or contraindicated optical colonoscopy in older patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190(1):145–150
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
All patients underwent a complete colon preparation in a standard fashion. The preparation was tailored to the patient and included 3–7 days of low-residue diet followed by 24–48 h of clear liquids. Colonic cleansing was accomplished with using 238 g MiraLAX in 64 oz fluid and four Dulcolax tablets the day before the examination, and one Dulcolax suppository the morning of the examination. For fecal tagging, Tagitol™ 5 Barium Sulfate suspension (Bracco Diagnostics, Monroe Township, NJ, USA) 20-ml bottle each was given with the last three solid meals. All studies were performed at our institution on a Siemens 64-slice CT scanner with 1-mm axial thin section reconstructed images used for quantification. Colonic distention was achieved using an automated CO2 insufflator (PROTOCO2L Colon Insufflator, Bracco Diagnostics, Monroe Township, NJ, USA). Adequacy of distention was judged by the attending radiologist monitoring the examination. The patients were scanned in the supine and prone positions. Additional lateral decubitus views were obtained when necessary.
Appendix 2
The anatomic definitions used for manual segmentation were as follows:
-
Rectum/sigmoid junction: point where the colon passed from the subperitoneal rectal segment into the peritoneal cavity.
-
Sigmoid/descending colon junction: point where the descending colon passed from the retroperitoneum into the peritoneal cavity corresponding to the point where the descending colon coursed ventrally in the sagittal view and medially in the coronal view.
-
Descending/transverse colon and transverse/ascending colon junctions: most superior points within the splenic and hepatic flexures, respectively.
-
Ascending colon/cecum junction: first haustral fold distal to the ileocecal valve.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Weber, C.N., Lev-Toaff, A.S., Levine, M.S. et al. Detailed quantitative assessment of colonic morphology at CT colonography using novel software: a feasibility and reproducibility study. Med Biol Eng Comput 55, 507–515 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-016-1529-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-016-1529-2