PURPOSE: To prospectively compare the effects of two computer-aided detection (CAD) systems on the detection of small pulmonary nodules at multi-detector row computed tomography (CT) by using a consensus panel decision as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. Multi-detector row CT scans were randomly chosen and prospectively evaluated in 25 patients. Two dedicated CAD systems-ImageChecker CT (R2 Technologies, Sunnyvale, Calif) and Nodule Enhanced Viewing (NEV) (Siemens Medical Solutions, Forchheim, Germany)-were used. Results were interpreted by three radiologists with 1, 3, and 6 years of experience. Images were evaluated without and with CAD software. The reference standard was assessed by a consensus panel consisting of all three radiologists and an adjudicator with 8 years of experience. RESULTS: A total of 116 pulmonary nodules (average diameter, 3.4 mm; average volume, 32.05 mm3) were found in all data sets during consensus interpretation, which included findings from the CAD software and all radiologists. Overall sensitivity was 73% with ImageChecker CT and 75% with NEV. Overall sensitivity without CAD was 68% for radiologist 1, 78% for radiologist 2, and 82% for radiologist 3. With ImageChecker CT, sensitivity increased to 79% for radiologist 1, 90% for radiologist 2, and 84% for radiologist 3. With NEV, sensitivity increased to 79% for radiologist 1, 90% for radiologist 2, and 86% for radiologist 3. The average number of false-positive findings was six (range, 0-14) with ImageChecker CT and eight (range, 0-22) with NEV. CONCLUSION: Radiologist performance in the interpretation of multi-detector row CT scans can be improved by using CAD systems, with a reduction in the number of false-negative diagnoses. No statistically significant difference in sensitivity was found between the two CAD systems.
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare the effects of two computer-aided detection (CAD) systems on the detection of small pulmonary nodules at multi-detector row computed tomography (CT) by using a consensus panel decision as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. Multi-detector row CT scans were randomly chosen and prospectively evaluated in 25 patients. Two dedicated CAD systems-ImageChecker CT (R2 Technologies, Sunnyvale, Calif) and Nodule Enhanced Viewing (NEV) (Siemens Medical Solutions, Forchheim, Germany)-were used. Results were interpreted by three radiologists with 1, 3, and 6 years of experience. Images were evaluated without and with CAD software. The reference standard was assessed by a consensus panel consisting of all three radiologists and an adjudicator with 8 years of experience. RESULTS: A total of 116 pulmonary nodules (average diameter, 3.4 mm; average volume, 32.05 mm3) were found in all data sets during consensus interpretation, which included findings from the CAD software and all radiologists. Overall sensitivity was 73% with ImageChecker CT and 75% with NEV. Overall sensitivity without CAD was 68% for radiologist 1, 78% for radiologist 2, and 82% for radiologist 3. With ImageChecker CT, sensitivity increased to 79% for radiologist 1, 90% for radiologist 2, and 84% for radiologist 3. With NEV, sensitivity increased to 79% for radiologist 1, 90% for radiologist 2, and 86% for radiologist 3. The average number of false-positive findings was six (range, 0-14) with ImageChecker CT and eight (range, 0-22) with NEV. CONCLUSION: Radiologist performance in the interpretation of multi-detector row CT scans can be improved by using CAD systems, with a reduction in the number of false-negative diagnoses. No statistically significant difference in sensitivity was found between the two CAD systems.
Authors: A R Larici; M Amato; P Ordóñez; F Maggi; L Menchini; A Caulo; L Calandriello; G Vallati; S Giunta; M Crecco; L Bonomo Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2012-02-10 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Kingshuk Roy Choudhury; David S Paik; Chin A Yi; Sandy Napel; Justus Roos; Geoffrey D Rubin Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Nicholas Petrick; Berkman Sahiner; Samuel G Armato; Alberto Bert; Loredana Correale; Silvia Delsanto; Matthew T Freedman; David Fryd; David Gur; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Zhimin Huo; Yulei Jiang; Lia Morra; Sophie Paquerault; Vikas Raykar; Frank Samuelson; Ronald M Summers; Georgia Tourassi; Hiroyuki Yoshida; Bin Zheng; Chuan Zhou; Heang-Ping Chan Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: E Lopez Torres; E Fiorina; F Pennazio; C Peroni; M Saletta; N Camarlinghi; M E Fantacci; P Cerello Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Christian Thilo; Mulugeta Gebregziabher; Felix G Meinel; Roman Goldenberg; John W Nance; Elisabeth M Arnoldi; Lashonda D Soma; Ullrich Ebersberger; Philip Blanke; Richard L Coursey; Michael A Rosenblum; Peter L Zwerner; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Justus E Roos; David Paik; David Olsen; Emily G Liu; Lawrence C Chow; Ann N Leung; Robert Mindelzun; Kingshuk R Choudhury; David P Naidich; Sandy Napel; Geoffrey D Rubin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 5.315