PURPOSE: To determine whether computer-aided detection (CAD) applied to computed tomographic (CT) colonography can help improve sensitivity of polyp detection by less-experienced radiologist readers, with colonoscopy or consensus used as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The release of the CT colonographic studies was approved by the individual institutional review boards of each institution. Institutions from the United States were HIPAA compliant. Written informed consent was waived at all institutions. The CT colonographic studies in 30 patients from six institutions were collected; 24 images depicted at least one confirmed polyp 6 mm or larger (39 total polyps) and six depicted no polyps. By using an investigational software package, seven less-experienced readers from two institutions evaluated the CT colonographic images and marked or scored polyps by using a five-point scale before and after CAD. The time needed to interpret the CT colonographic findings without CAD and then to re-evaluate them with CAD was recorded. For each reader, the McNemar test, adjusted for clustered data, was used to compare sensitivities for readers without and with CAD; a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to analyze the number of false-positive results per patient. RESULTS: The average sensitivity of the seven readers for polyp detection was significantly improved with CAD-from 0.810 to 0.908 (P=.0152). The number of false-positive results per patient without and with CAD increased from 0.70 to 0.96 (95% confidence interval for the increase: -0.39, 0.91). The mean total time for the readings was 17 minutes 54 seconds; for interpretation of CT colonographic findings alone, the mean time was 14 minutes 16 seconds; and for review of CAD findings, the mean time was 3 minutes 38 seconds. CONCLUSION: Results of this feasibility study suggest that CAD for CT colonography significantly improves per-polyp detection for less-experienced readers. Copyright (c) RSNA, 2007.
PURPOSE: To determine whether computer-aided detection (CAD) applied to computed tomographic (CT) colonography can help improve sensitivity of polyp detection by less-experienced radiologist readers, with colonoscopy or consensus used as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The release of the CT colonographic studies was approved by the individual institutional review boards of each institution. Institutions from the United States were HIPAA compliant. Written informed consent was waived at all institutions. The CT colonographic studies in 30 patients from six institutions were collected; 24 images depicted at least one confirmed polyp 6 mm or larger (39 total polyps) and six depicted no polyps. By using an investigational software package, seven less-experienced readers from two institutions evaluated the CT colonographic images and marked or scored polyps by using a five-point scale before and after CAD. The time needed to interpret the CT colonographic findings without CAD and then to re-evaluate them with CAD was recorded. For each reader, the McNemar test, adjusted for clustered data, was used to compare sensitivities for readers without and with CAD; a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to analyze the number of false-positive results per patient. RESULTS: The average sensitivity of the seven readers for polyp detection was significantly improved with CAD-from 0.810 to 0.908 (P=.0152). The number of false-positive results per patient without and with CAD increased from 0.70 to 0.96 (95% confidence interval for the increase: -0.39, 0.91). The mean total time for the readings was 17 minutes 54 seconds; for interpretation of CT colonographic findings alone, the mean time was 14 minutes 16 seconds; and for review of CAD findings, the mean time was 3 minutes 38 seconds. CONCLUSION: Results of this feasibility study suggest that CAD for CT colonography significantly improves per-polyp detection for less-experienced readers. Copyright (c) RSNA, 2007.
Authors: Kevin N Blackmon; Charles Florin; Luca Bogoni; Joshua W McCain; James D Koonce; Heon Lee; Gorka Bastarrika; Christian Thilo; Philip Costello; Marcos Salganicoff; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-01-13 Impact factor: 5.315
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: Ronald M Summers; Jiamin Liu; Bhavya Rehani; Phillip Stafford; Linda Brown; Adeline Louie; Duncan S Barlow; Donald W Jensen; Brooks Cash; J Richard Choi; Perry J Pickhardt; Nicholas Petrick Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-06-12 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Thomas Mang; Luca Bogoni; Vikram X Anand; Dass Chandra; Andrew J Curtin; Anna S Lev-Toaff; Gerardo Hermosillo; Ralph Noah; Vikas Raykar; Marcos Salganicoff; Robert Shaw; Susan Summerton; Rafel F R Tappouni; Helmut Ringel; Michael Weber; Matthias Wolf; Nancy A Obuchowski Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 5.315