RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To determine if interpretive errors in the course of learning CT colonography are secondary to failures in detection or in characterization and determine the types of lesions frequently missed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen radiologists completed an electronic CTC training module consisting of two parts: 1) a teaching file demonstrating the varied appearances of polyps, cancers, and pitfalls in interpreting exams; and 2) a test of 50 complete CTC datasets. Following review of each test case, radiologists were asked to indicate if and where a polyp was visualized. The module then showed each neoplasm (if any) located within the dataset. For false negative examinations, radiologists indicated if the lesion was not seen, was seen but interpreted as colonic wall or fold, or was seen but interpreted as stool or fluid. RESULTS: The average sensitivity for sessile, pedunculated, and flat polyps for these novice readers was 76%, 63%, and 32%, respectively. Average sensitivity for all morphologies of cancers (annular, polypoid, flat) was high (93%, 85%, 95%), with 8/11 missed cancers being secondary to failure in detection. The most frequently missed cancer was an annular constricting tumor (5/11). Overall, 55% (73/132) of errors were failures of detection and 45% (59/132) were errors in characterization. CONCLUSION: Radiologists learning CT colonography had slightly more errors of detection than characterization, but this difference was not statistically significant. Flat and pedunculated polyps and annular constricting cancers were the most frequently missed morphologies. Examples of these abnormalities should be emphasized in CTC training programs.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To determine if interpretive errors in the course of learning CT colonography are secondary to failures in detection or in characterization and determine the types of lesions frequently missed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen radiologists completed an electronic CTC training module consisting of two parts: 1) a teaching file demonstrating the varied appearances of polyps, cancers, and pitfalls in interpreting exams; and 2) a test of 50 complete CTC datasets. Following review of each test case, radiologists were asked to indicate if and where a polyp was visualized. The module then showed each neoplasm (if any) located within the dataset. For false negative examinations, radiologists indicated if the lesion was not seen, was seen but interpreted as colonic wall or fold, or was seen but interpreted as stool or fluid. RESULTS: The average sensitivity for sessile, pedunculated, and flat polyps for these novice readers was 76%, 63%, and 32%, respectively. Average sensitivity for all morphologies of cancers (annular, polypoid, flat) was high (93%, 85%, 95%), with 8/11 missed cancers being secondary to failure in detection. The most frequently missed cancer was an annular constricting tumor (5/11). Overall, 55% (73/132) of errors were failures of detection and 45% (59/132) were errors in characterization. CONCLUSION: Radiologists learning CT colonography had slightly more errors of detection than characterization, but this difference was not statistically significant. Flat and pedunculated polyps and annular constricting cancers were the most frequently missed morphologies. Examples of these abnormalities should be emphasized in CTC training programs.
Authors: Andrew Slater; Stuart A Taylor; Emily Tam; Louise Gartner; Julia Scarth; Chand Peiris; Arun Gupta; Michele Marshall; David Burling; Steve Halligan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-05-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: James E East; Brian P Saunders; Darren Boone; David Burling; Steve Halligan; Stuart A Taylor Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-04-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Igor Trilisky; Kristen Wroblewski; Michael W Vannier; John M Horne; Abraham H Dachman Journal: Radiographics Date: 2014 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Joel G Fletcher; Mei-Hsiu Chen; Benjamin A Herman; C Daniel Johnson; Alicia Toledano; Abraham H Dachman; Amy K Hara; Jeff L Fidler; Christine O Menias; Kevin J Coakley; Mark Kuo; Karen M Horton; Jugesh Cheema; Revathy Iyer; Bettina Siewert; Judy Yee; Richard Obregon; Peter Zimmerman; Robert Halvorsen; Giovanna Casola; Martina Morrin Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Ronald M Summers; Suzanne M Frentz; Jiamin Liu; Jianhua Yao; Linda Brown; Adeline Louie; Duncan S Barlow; Donald W Jensen; Andrew J Dwyer; Perry J Pickhardt; Nicholas Petrick Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 3.173