CT colonography: investigation of the optimum reader paradigm by using computer-aided detection software - PubMed (original) (raw)
. 2008 Feb;246(2):463-71.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2461070190. Epub 2007 Dec 19.
Susan C Charman, Philippe Lefere, Elizabeth G McFarland, Erik K Paulson, Judy Yee, Rizwan Aslam, John M Barlow, Arun Gupta, David H Kim, Chad M Miller, Steve Halligan
Affiliations
- PMID: 18094263
- DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2461070190
CT colonography: investigation of the optimum reader paradigm by using computer-aided detection software
Stuart A Taylor et al. Radiology. 2008 Feb.
Abstract
Purpose: To prospectively compare the diagnostic performance and time efficiency of both second and concurrent computer-aided detection (CAD) reading paradigms for retrospectively obtained computed tomographic (CT) colonography data sets by using consensus reading (three radiologists) of colonoscopic findings as a reference standard.
Materials and methods: Ethical permission, HIPAA compliance (for U.S. institutions), and patient consent were obtained from all institutions for use of CT colonography data sets in this study. Ten radiologists each read 25 CT colonography data sets (12 men, 13 women; mean age, 61 years) containing 69 polyps (28 were 1-5 mm, 41 were >or=6 mm) by using workstations integrated with CAD software. Reading was randomized to either "second read" CAD (applied only after initial unassisted assessment) or "concurrent read" CAD (applied at the start of assessment). Data sets were reread 6 weeks later by using the opposing paradigm. Polyp sensitivity and reading times were compared by using multilevel logistic and linear regression, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated.
Results: Compared with the unassisted read, odds of improved polyp (>or=6 mm) detection were 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0, 2.2) and 1.3 (95% CI: 0.9, 1.9) by using CAD as second and concurrent reader, respectively. Detection odds by using CAD concurrently were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.59, 1.3) and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.57, 1.01) those of second read CAD, excluding and including polyps 1-5 mm, respectively. The concurrent read took 2.9 minutes (95% CI: -3.8, -1.9) less than did second read. The mean areas under the ROC curve (95% CI) for the unassisted read, second read CAD, and concurrent read CAD were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.87), 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.90), and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.92), respectively.
Conclusion: CAD is more time efficient when used concurrently than when used as a second reader, with similar sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger. However, use of second read CAD maximizes sensitivity, particularly for smaller lesions.
(c) RSNA, 2007.
Similar articles
- Influence of computer-aided detection false-positives on reader performance and diagnostic confidence for CT colonography.
Taylor SA, Brittenden J, Lenton J, Lambie H, Goldstone A, Wylie PN, Tolan D, Burling D, Honeyfield L, Bassett P, Halligan S. Taylor SA, et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Jun;192(6):1682-9. doi: 10.2214/AJR.08.1625. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009. PMID: 19457835 - CT colonography: preliminary assessment of a double-read paradigm that uses computer-aided detection as the first reader.
Iussich G, Correale L, Senore C, Segnan N, Laghi A, Iafrate F, Campanella D, Neri E, Cerri F, Hassan C, Regge D. Iussich G, et al. Radiology. 2013 Sep;268(3):743-51. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13121192. Epub 2013 Apr 29. Radiology. 2013. PMID: 23630310 - Computer-aided detection for computed tomographic colonography screening: a prospective comparison of a double-reading paradigm with first-reader computer-aided detection against second-reader computer-aided detection.
Iussich G, Correale L, Senore C, Hassan C, Segnan N, Campanella D, Bert A, Galatola G, Laudi C, Regge D. Iussich G, et al. Invest Radiol. 2014 Mar;49(3):173-82. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000009. Invest Radiol. 2014. PMID: 24442160 - CT colonography with computer-aided detection: recognizing the causes of false-positive reader results.
Trilisky I, Wroblewski K, Vannier MW, Horne JM, Dachman AH. Trilisky I, et al. Radiographics. 2014 Nov-Dec;34(7):1885-905. doi: 10.1148/rg.347130053. Radiographics. 2014. PMID: 25384290 Free PMC article. Review. - CAD: how it works, how to use it, performance.
Regge D, Halligan S. Regge D, et al. Eur J Radiol. 2013 Aug;82(8):1171-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.04.022. Epub 2012 May 16. Eur J Radiol. 2013. PMID: 22595503 Review.
Cited by
- A Bayesian Latent Class Model to Predict Kidney Obstruction in the Absence of Gold Standard.
Chang C, Jang JH, Manatunga A, Taylor AT, Long Q. Chang C, et al. J Am Stat Assoc. 2020;115(532):1645-1663. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2019.1689983. Epub 2020 Jan 6. J Am Stat Assoc. 2020. PMID: 34113054 Free PMC article. - Computer-aided detection of brain metastasis on 3D MR imaging: Observer performance study.
Sunwoo L, Kim YJ, Choi SH, Kim KG, Kang JH, Kang Y, Bae YJ, Yoo RE, Kim J, Lee KJ, Lee SH, Choi BS, Jung C, Sohn CH, Kim JH. Sunwoo L, et al. PLoS One. 2017 Jun 8;12(6):e0178265. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178265. eCollection 2017. PLoS One. 2017. PMID: 28594923 Free PMC article. - Progress in Fully Automated Abdominal CT Interpretation.
Summers RM. Summers RM. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Jul;207(1):67-79. doi: 10.2214/AJR.15.15996. Epub 2016 Apr 21. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016. PMID: 27101207 Free PMC article. Review. - Developments in Screening Tests and Strategies for Colorectal Cancer.
Sovich JL, Sartor Z, Misra S. Sovich JL, et al. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:326728. doi: 10.1155/2015/326728. Epub 2015 Oct 4. Biomed Res Int. 2015. PMID: 26504799 Free PMC article. Review. - Assessment of the Incremental Benefit of Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) for Interpretation of CT Colonography by Experienced and Inexperienced Readers.
Boone D, Mallett S, McQuillan J, Taylor SA, Altman DG, Halligan S. Boone D, et al. PLoS One. 2015 Sep 10;10(9):e0136624. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136624. eCollection 2015. PLoS One. 2015. PMID: 26355745 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous