RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The factors that influence the conspicuity of polyps on computed tomographic (CT) colonography (CTC) are poorly understood. The aim of this study is to compare radiologists' visual assessment of polyp conspicuity to quantitative image features and show the relationship between visual conspicuity and the detection of colonic polyps by computer-aided detection (CAD) on CTC. METHODS: One polyp (size range 6-10 mm) was selected from the CTC examination of each of 29 patients from a larger cohort. All patients underwent oral contrast-enhanced CTC with same-day optical colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. The polyps were analyzed by a previously validated CAD system and placed into one of two groups (detected [n = 12] or not detected [n = 17] by CAD). The study population was intentionally enriched with polyps that were not detected by the CAD system. Four board-certified radiologists, blinded to the CAD results, reviewed two- and three-dimensional CTC images of the polyps and scored the conspicuity of the polyps using a 4-point scale (0 = least conspicuous, 3 = most conspicuous). Polyp height and width were measured by a trained observer. A t-test (two-tailed, unpaired equal variance) was done to determine statistical significance. Intra- and interobserver variabilities of the conspicuity scores were assessed using the weighted kappa test. Regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship of conspicuity to polyp height and width. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference was found between the average conspicuity scores for polyps that were detected by CAD compared to those that were not (2.3 +/- 0.6 vs. 1.4 +/- 0.8) (P = .004). There was moderate intraobserver agreement of the conspicuity scores (weighted kappa 0.57 +/- 0.09). Interobserver agreement was fair (average weighted kappa for six pair-wise comparisons, 0.38 +/- 0.15). Conspicuity was correlated with manual measurement of polyp height (r(2) = 0.38-0.56, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This CAD system tends to detect 6-10 mm polyps that are more visually conspicuous. Polyp height is a major determinant of visual conspicuity. The generalizability of these findings to other CAD systems is currently unknown. Nevertheless, CAD developers may need to specifically target flatter and less conspicuous polyps for CAD to better assist the radiologist to find polyps in this clinically important size category.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The factors that influence the conspicuity of polyps on computed tomographic (CT) colonography (CTC) are poorly understood. The aim of this study is to compare radiologists' visual assessment of polyp conspicuity to quantitative image features and show the relationship between visual conspicuity and the detection of colonic polyps by computer-aided detection (CAD) on CTC. METHODS: One polyp (size range 6-10 mm) was selected from the CTC examination of each of 29 patients from a larger cohort. All patients underwent oral contrast-enhanced CTC with same-day optical colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. The polyps were analyzed by a previously validated CAD system and placed into one of two groups (detected [n = 12] or not detected [n = 17] by CAD). The study population was intentionally enriched with polyps that were not detected by the CAD system. Four board-certified radiologists, blinded to the CAD results, reviewed two- and three-dimensional CTC images of the polyps and scored the conspicuity of the polyps using a 4-point scale (0 = least conspicuous, 3 = most conspicuous). Polyp height and width were measured by a trained observer. A t-test (two-tailed, unpaired equal variance) was done to determine statistical significance. Intra- and interobserver variabilities of the conspicuity scores were assessed using the weighted kappa test. Regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship of conspicuity to polyp height and width. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference was found between the average conspicuity scores for polyps that were detected by CAD compared to those that were not (2.3 +/- 0.6 vs. 1.4 +/- 0.8) (P = .004). There was moderate intraobserver agreement of the conspicuity scores (weighted kappa 0.57 +/- 0.09). Interobserver agreement was fair (average weighted kappa for six pair-wise comparisons, 0.38 +/- 0.15). Conspicuity was correlated with manual measurement of polyp height (r(2) = 0.38-0.56, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This CAD system tends to detect 6-10 mm polyps that are more visually conspicuous. Polyp height is a major determinant of visual conspicuity. The generalizability of these findings to other CAD systems is currently unknown. Nevertheless, CAD developers may need to specifically target flatter and less conspicuous polyps for CAD to better assist the radiologist to find polyps in this clinically important size category.
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; J Richard Choi; Inku Hwang; James A Butler; Michael L Puckett; Hans A Hildebrandt; Roy K Wong; Pamela A Nugent; Pauline A Mysliwiec; William R Schindler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeff L Fidler; Joel G Fletcher; C Daniel Johnson; James E Huprich; John M Barlow; Franklin Earnest; Brian J Bartholmai Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Thomas M Gluecker; J G Fletcher; Timothy J Welch; Robert L MacCarty; William S Harmsen; Jeffrey R Harrington; Duane Ilstrup; Lynn A Wilson; Kay E Corcoran; C Daniel Johnson Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Ronald M Summers; Jiamin Liu; Jianhua Yao; Linda Brown; J Richard Choi; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Amy K Hara; Meridith Blevins; Mei-Hsiu Chen; Abraham H Dachman; Mark D Kuo; Christine O Menias; Bettina Siewert; Jugesh I Cheema; Richard G Obregon; Jeff L Fidler; Peter Zimmerman; Karen M Horton; Kevin J Coakley; Revathy B Iyer; Robert A Halvorsen; Giovanna Casola; Judy Yee; Benjamin A Herman; C Daniel Johnson Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Andrew A Plumb; Fiona Pathiraja; Claire Nickerson; Katherine Wooldrage; David Burling; Stuart A Taylor; Wendy S Atkin; Steve Halligan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 5.315