Subscribe to RSS
Exploring the clinical potential of an automatic colonic polyp detection method based on the creation of energy maps
submitted23 December 2015
accepted after revision17 April 2016
10 June 2016 (online)
Background and aims: Polyp miss-rate is a drawback of colonoscopy that increases significantly for small polyps. We explored the efficacy of an automatic computer-vision method for polyp detection.
Methods: Our method relies on a model that defines polyp boundaries as valleys of image intensity. Valley information is integrated into energy maps that represent the likelihood of the presence of a polyp.
Results: In 24 videos containing polyps from routine colonoscopies, all polyps were detected in at least one frame. The mean of the maximum values on the energy map was higher for frames with polyps than without (P < 0.001). Performance improved in high quality frames (AUC = 0.79 [95 %CI 0.70 – 0.87] vs. 0.75 [95 %CI 0.66 – 0.83]). With 3.75 set as the maximum threshold value, sensitivity and specificity for the detection of polyps were 70.4 % (95 %CI 60.3 % – 80.8 %) and 72.4 % (95 %CI 61.6 % – 84.6 %), respectively.
Conclusion: Energy maps performed well for colonic polyp detection, indicating their potential applicability in clinical practice.
- 1 Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology 2008; 134: 1570-1595
- 2 Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau JM et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: ESGE Guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 842-851
- 3 van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J et al. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 343-350
- 4 Lee TJ, Rees CJ, Blanks RG et al. Colonoscopic factors associated with adenoma detection in a national colorectal cancer screening program. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 203-211
- 5 Belsey J, Crosta C, Epstein O et al. Meta-analysis: the relative efficacy of oral bowel preparations for colonoscopy 1985 – 2010. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012; 35: 222-237
- 6 Konda VI, Chauhan SS. ASGE Technology Committee et al. Endoscopes and devices to improve colon polyp detection. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 1122-1129
- 7 Tajbakhsh N, Gurudu SR, Liang J. Automatic polyp detection using global geometric constraints and local intensity variation patterns. Med Image Comput Assist Interv 2014; 17: 179-187
- 8 Bernal J, Sánchez FJ, Vilariño F. Towards automatic polyp detection with a polyp appearance model. Pattern Recognition 2011; 45: 3166-3182
- 9 Bernal J, Sánchez FJ, Fernández-Esparrach G et al. WM-DOVA maps for accurate polyp highlighting in colonoscopy: validation vs. saliency maps from physicians. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2015; 43: 99-111
- 10 Endoscopic Classification Review Group. Update on the Paris classification of superficial neoplastic lesions in the digestive tract. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 570-578
- 11 Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 686-692
- 12 Lebwohl B, Kastrinos F, Glick M et al. The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 1207-1214
- 13 Regge D, Della Monica P, Galatola G et al. Efficacy of computer-aided detection as a second reader for 6 – 9 mm lesions at CT colonography. Radiology 2013; 266: 168-176
- 14 Mang T, Bogoni L, Anand VX et al. CT colonography: effect of computer-aided detection of colonic polyps as a second and concurrent reader for general radiologists with moderate experience in CT colonography. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 1466-1476
- 15 Halligan S, Mallett S, Altman DG et al. Incremental benefit of computer-aided detection when used as a second and concurrent reader of CT colonographic data: multiobserver study. Radiology 2011; 258: 469-476