OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of radiographers with that of radiologists in the interpretation of CT colonographic images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four observers (a radiologist, a radiologist in training, and two radiographers) evaluated 145 data sets using a primary 3D approach. The radiographers were part of our CT colonography work group and underwent training that consisted of 20 cases. The reference standard was optical colonoscopy with second-look colonoscopy for discrepant lesions > or = 10 mm in diameter. Mean sensitivities per patient and per polyp stratified for size (any size, > or = 6 mm, and > or = 10 mm) was determined for the radiologists and radiographers. Specificity was determined on a per-patient basis. RESULTS: At colonoscopy in 86 of 145 patients, a total of 317 polyps were found (60 polyps > or = 6 mm in 26 patients and 31 polyps > or = 10 mm in 18 patients). No statistically significant differences were found in detection rates between radiologists and radiographers. Sensitivities for patients with a lesion of any size (66% for radiologists vs 65% for radiographers), > or = 6 mm (81% vs 87%), and > or = 10 mm (both 78%) were similar for all observers. On a per-polyp basis, detection rates were equivalent regardless of polyp size (47% vs 40%), for lesions > or = 6 mm (71% vs 65%), and for lesions > or = 10 mm (69% vs 66%). Mean specificities were similar among patients without lesions (31% vs 30%), patients without lesions > or = 6 mm (71% vs 67%), and patients without lesions > or = 10 mm (93% vs 93%). CONCLUSION: Radiographers with training in CT colonographic evaluation achieved sensitivity and specificity in polyp detection comparable with that of radiologists. Radiographers can be considered reviewers in the evaluation of CT colonographic images.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of radiographers with that of radiologists in the interpretation of CT colonographic images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four observers (a radiologist, a radiologist in training, and two radiographers) evaluated 145 data sets using a primary 3D approach. The radiographers were part of our CT colonography work group and underwent training that consisted of 20 cases. The reference standard was optical colonoscopy with second-look colonoscopy for discrepant lesions > or = 10 mm in diameter. Mean sensitivities per patient and per polyp stratified for size (any size, > or = 6 mm, and > or = 10 mm) was determined for the radiologists and radiographers. Specificity was determined on a per-patient basis. RESULTS: At colonoscopy in 86 of 145 patients, a total of 317 polyps were found (60 polyps > or = 6 mm in 26 patients and 31 polyps > or = 10 mm in 18 patients). No statistically significant differences were found in detection rates between radiologists and radiographers. Sensitivities for patients with a lesion of any size (66% for radiologists vs 65% for radiographers), > or = 6 mm (81% vs 87%), and > or = 10 mm (both 78%) were similar for all observers. On a per-polyp basis, detection rates were equivalent regardless of polyp size (47% vs 40%), for lesions > or = 6 mm (71% vs 65%), and for lesions > or = 10 mm (69% vs 66%). Mean specificities were similar among patients without lesions (31% vs 30%), patients without lesions > or = 6 mm (71% vs 67%), and patients without lesions > or = 10 mm (93% vs 93%). CONCLUSION: Radiographers with training in CT colonographic evaluation achieved sensitivity and specificity in polyp detection comparable with that of radiologists. Radiographers can be considered reviewers in the evaluation of CT colonographic images.
Authors: R Kakinuma; K Ashizawa; T Kobayashi; A Fukushima; H Hayashi; T Kondo; M Machida; M Matsusako; K Minami; K Oikado; M Okuda; S Takamatsu; M Sugawara; S Gomi; Y Muramatsu; K Hanai; Y Muramatsu; M Kaneko; R Tsuchiya; N Moriyama Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Greg Rosenfeld; Yi Tzu Nancy Fu; Brendan Quiney; Hong Qian; Darin Krygier; Jacquie Brown; Patrick Vos; Pari Tiwari; Jennifer Telford; Brian Bressler; Robert Enns Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 5.742