Dear AuntMinnie Insider,
The choice between primary 2D and primary 3D reading in virtual colonoscopy is turning out to be just that -- a choice. And no matter which method you choose for primary reading, as Dr. Judy Yee from the University of California, San Francisco noted in a recent talk, you'll need the other method to confirm your findings.
Certainly there are differences. Studies generally show that 2D exams can be read faster, while 3D often yields more accurate polyp measurements, for example. Individual lesions are often easier to spot in one or the other. You'll find reading tips from Dr. Yee, and some recent study results on 2D versus 3D, in this issue's Insider Exclusive.
A recent study in Radiology, for example, logged faster reading times and slightly higher sensitivity with 2D, while another study found better measurements with 3D.
If you're using fluid tagging to hunt for submerged polyps, you'll want to be sure you're using the right window settings, according to a study from London.
In the money department, another U.K. paper examines the costs and benefits associated with extracolonic findings detected at VC. Unlike some previous studies, this one calculates treatment costs in a cohort of older, symptomatic patients, including several over 70 who required surgery to address the findings. Was it worth the price?
Finally, a new report by gastroenterologists updates optical colonoscopy surveillance guidelines postsurgery. Look for these stories and more, in your Virtual Colonoscopy Digital Community.



















![Axial images from unenhanced calcium score cardiac CT (left) and curved planar reformation images from CT angiography (right) show that higher long-term exposure to air pollution is associated with greater coronary artery calcium and more obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). Top row: Images in a 68-year-old male patient with higher 10-year mean ambient air pollution exposure (7.9 μg/m3 for particulate matter measuring ≤2.5 μm in diameter [PM2.5] and 17.4 parts per billion [ppb] for NO2) with extensive CAD (coronary artery calcium score [CACS] >1,000 and obstructive CAD [≥70% diameter stenosis]). Bottom row: Images in a 57-year-old female patient with lower 10-year mean ambient air pollution exposure (6.3 μg/m3 for PM2.5 and 4.6 ppb for NO2) with no CAD (CACS = 0 and no obstructive stenosis).](https://img.auntminnie.com/mindful/smg/workspaces/default/uploads/2026/06/hanneman.r6SMLzkezo.png?auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=crop&h=112&q=70&w=112)
