OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to assess detection, tracking, and reading time of solid lung nodules > or = 4 mm on pairs of MDCT chest screening examinations using a computer-aided detection (CAD) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 54 pairs of low-dose MDCT chest examinations (1.25-mm collimation), two chest radiologists in consensus established that 25 examinations contained 52 nodules > or = 4 mm. All paired examinations were interpreted on the CAD workstation--first without and then with CAD input--for the detection and tracking of lung nodules. A subset of 33 examination pairs was later read on the clinical workstation used in daily practice, and the results were compared for reading time with those on the CAD workstation. RESULTS: After CAD input, the sensitivity for nodule detection increased statistically significantly for both readers (9.6% and 23%; p < or = 0.025). One cancer initially missed by one radiologist was correctly identified with CAD input. The overall reading time on the CAD workstation and clinical workstation was comparable for both radiologists. On average, readers spent 4-5 minutes per case to read the paired examinations on the CAD workstation and 6-8 seconds per CAD mark. The CAD system successfully matched 91.3% of nodules detected in both examinations. The overall rate of available CAD growth assessment was 54.9% of all nodule pairs. CONCLUSION: In the context of temporal comparison of MDCT screening examinations, the sensitivity of radiologists for detecting lung nodules > or = 4 mm increased significantly (p < or = 0.025) with CAD input without compromising reading time.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to assess detection, tracking, and reading time of solid lung nodules > or = 4 mm on pairs of MDCT chest screening examinations using a computer-aided detection (CAD) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 54 pairs of low-dose MDCT chest examinations (1.25-mm collimation), two chest radiologists in consensus established that 25 examinations contained 52 nodules > or = 4 mm. All paired examinations were interpreted on the CAD workstation--first without and then with CAD input--for the detection and tracking of lung nodules. A subset of 33 examination pairs was later read on the clinical workstation used in daily practice, and the results were compared for reading time with those on the CAD workstation. RESULTS: After CAD input, the sensitivity for nodule detection increased statistically significantly for both readers (9.6% and 23%; p < or = 0.025). One cancer initially missed by one radiologist was correctly identified with CAD input. The overall reading time on the CAD workstation and clinical workstation was comparable for both radiologists. On average, readers spent 4-5 minutes per case to read the paired examinations on the CAD workstation and 6-8 seconds per CAD mark. The CAD system successfully matched 91.3% of nodules detected in both examinations. The overall rate of available CAD growth assessment was 54.9% of all nodule pairs. CONCLUSION: In the context of temporal comparison of MDCT screening examinations, the sensitivity of radiologists for detecting lung nodules > or = 4 mm increased significantly (p < or = 0.025) with CAD input without compromising reading time.
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: Jan Hendrik Moltz; Melvin D'Anastasi; Andreas Kiessling; Daniel Pinto dos Santos; Christoph Schülke; Heinz-Otto Peitgen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Arjun Nair; Natalie Gartland; Bruce Barton; Diane Jones; Leigh Clements; Nicholas J Screaton; John A Holemans; Stephen W Duffy; John K Field; David R Baldwin; David M Hansell; Anand Devaraj Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Kyung Nyeo Jeon; Jin Mo Goo; Chang Hyun Lee; Youkyung Lee; Ji Yung Choo; Nyoung Keun Lee; Mi-Suk Shim; In Sun Lee; Kwang Gi Kim; David S Gierada; Kyongtae T Bae Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 6.016
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
Authors: Charlene Jin Yee Liew; Lester Chee Hao Leong; Lynette Li San Teo; Ching Ching Ong; Foong Koon Cheah; Wei Ping Tham; Haja Mohamed Mohideen Salahudeen; Chau Hung Lee; Gregory Jon Leng Kaw; Augustine Kim Huat Tee; Ian Yu Yan Tsou; Kiang Hiong Tay; Raymond Quah; Bien Peng Tan; Hong Chou; Daniel Tan; Angeline Choo Choo Poh; Andrew Gee Seng Tan Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 1.858