Cited by 43Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging

Microcomputed tomography colonography for polyp detection in an in vivo mouse tumor model

Open access
Pickhardt, Perry J., Halberg, Richard B., Taylor, Andrew J., Durkee, Ben Y., Fine, Jason, Lee, Fred T., Weichert, Jamey P.·2005·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

This study was initiated to evaluate the efficacy of negative contrast-enhanced microcomputed tomography (microCT) colonography for the noninvasive detection of colonic tumors in living mice. After colonic preparation, 20 anesthetized congenic mice were scanned with high-resolution microCT. Images were displayed by using commercial visualization software and interpreted by two gastrointestinal radiologists, who were unaware of tumor prevalence and findings at gross pathology. Two-dimensional multiplanar images were assessed by using a five-point scale to distinguish colonic tumors (polyps) from fecal pellets (5 = definitely a tumor, 4 = probably a tumor, 3 = indeterminate, 2 = probably not a tumor, 1 = definitely not a tumor). Gross pathologic evaluation of excised mouse colons served as the reference standard. Data analysis included dichotomizing results, with 1–2 indicating no tumor and 3–5 indicating tumor and also receiver operator characteristic curve analysis with area under the curve for threshold-independent assessment. A total of 41 colonic polyps in 18 of the 20 mice were identified at gross examination on necropsy, of which 30 measured 2–5 mm and 11 measured <2 mm in size. The pooled per-polyp sensitivity for lesions >2 mm was 93.3% (56/60). The pooled per-mouse sensitivity for polyps >2 mm was 97.1% (33/34). Pooled specificity for distinguishing fecal pellets from tumor was 98.5% (65/66). The combined area under the curve from receiver operator characteristic curve analysis was 0.810 ± 0.038 (95% confidence interval, 0.730–0.890). These findings indicate that accurate noninvasive longitudinal monitoring of colon tumor progression or response to various therapies is now technically feasible in live mice by using this microCT colonography method.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0409915102

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The dose of radiation in both CT and PET that would need to be delivered to the fish to achieve adequate resolution may have independent biological effects.

    “Another concern is the dose of radiation in both CT and PET that would need to be delivered to the fish to achieve adequate resolution, which may have independent biological effects (Paulus et al., 2000; Pickhardt et al., 2005”

    From Transparent Adult Zebrafish as a Tool for In Vivo Transplantation Analysis (2008) · cites this paper as Pickhardt et al., 2005

    The Discussion says radiation from microCT scanning could potentially affect tumor growth and interfere with serial monitoring in mice. Materials and Methods says the authors chose parameters that provided adequate resolution while minimizing radiation dose. The paper does not establish this concern for PET or fish. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [23]Weichert, J. P. (2004) in Mouse Models of Human Cancer , ed. Holland, E. C. (Wiley, New York), pp. 339-348.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pickhardt, P. J., Halberg, R. B., Taylor, A. J., Durkee, B. Y., Fine, J., Lee, F. T., & Weichert, J. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Departments of Radiology and Biostatistics, University of Wisconsin Medical School, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53792; and McArdle Laboratory of Cancer Research, University of Wisconsin, 1400 University Avenue, Madison, WI 53706
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2005-02-22
Volume
102
Issue
9
Pages
3419-3422
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2016829908
Cited by
43
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (U01CA084227, R21CA095249, P20CA086278, R37CA063677)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Keywords
colorectal polyp detection, colon cancer, mouse tumor model, non-invasive tumor imaging, diagnostic accuracy, longitudinal tumor monitoring
MeSH terms
Animals, Colonic Polyps, Disease Models, Animal, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review