Charles S White1, Thomas Flukinger, Jean Jeudy, Joseph J Chen. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 22 S Greene St, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA. cwhite@umm.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the ability of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system to detect lung cancer overlooked at initial interpretation by the radiologist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was given for this study. Patient consent was not required; a HIPAA waiver was granted because of the retrospective nature of the data collection. In patients with lung cancer diagnosed from 1995 to 2006 at two institutions, each chest radiograph obtained prior to tumor discovery was evaluated by two radiologists for an overlooked lesion. The size and location of the nodules were documented and graded for subtlety (grades 1-4, 1 = very subtle). Each radiograph with a missed lesion was analyzed by a commercial CAD system, as was the follow-up image at diagnosis. An age- and sex-matched control group was used to assess CAD false-positive rates. RESULTS: Missed lung cancer was found in 89 patients (age range, 51-86 years; mean age, 65 years; 80 men, nine women) on 114 radiographs. Lesion size ranged from 0.4 to 5.5 cm (mean, 1.8 cm). Lesions were most commonly peripheral (n = 63, 71%) and in upper lobes (n = 67, 75%). Lesion subtlety score was 1, 2, 3, or 4 on 43, 49, 17, and five radiographs, respectively. CAD identified 53 (47%) and 46 (52%) undetected lesions on a per-image and per-patient basis, respectively. The average size of lesions detected with CAD was 1.73 cm compared with 1.85 cm for lesions that were undetected (P = .47). A significant difference (P = .017) was found in the average subtlety score between detected lesions (score, 2.06) and undetected lesions (score, 1.68). An average of 3.9 false-positive results occurred per radiograph; an average of 2.4 false-positive results occurred per radiograph for the control group. CONCLUSION: CAD has the potential to detect approximately half of the lesions overlooked by human readers at chest radiography. (c) RSNA, 2009.
PURPOSE: To study the ability of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system to detect lung cancer overlooked at initial interpretation by the radiologist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was given for this study. Patient consent was not required; a HIPAA waiver was granted because of the retrospective nature of the data collection. In patients with lung cancer diagnosed from 1995 to 2006 at two institutions, each chest radiograph obtained prior to tumor discovery was evaluated by two radiologists for an overlooked lesion. The size and location of the nodules were documented and graded for subtlety (grades 1-4, 1 = very subtle). Each radiograph with a missed lesion was analyzed by a commercial CAD system, as was the follow-up image at diagnosis. An age- and sex-matched control group was used to assess CAD false-positive rates. RESULTS: Missed lung cancer was found in 89 patients (age range, 51-86 years; mean age, 65 years; 80 men, nine women) on 114 radiographs. Lesion size ranged from 0.4 to 5.5 cm (mean, 1.8 cm). Lesions were most commonly peripheral (n = 63, 71%) and in upper lobes (n = 67, 75%). Lesion subtlety score was 1, 2, 3, or 4 on 43, 49, 17, and five radiographs, respectively. CAD identified 53 (47%) and 46 (52%) undetected lesions on a per-image and per-patient basis, respectively. The average size of lesions detected with CAD was 1.73 cm compared with 1.85 cm for lesions that were undetected (P = .47). A significant difference (P = .017) was found in the average subtlety score between detected lesions (score, 2.06) and undetected lesions (score, 1.68). An average of 3.9 false-positive results occurred per radiograph; an average of 2.4 false-positive results occurred per radiograph for the control group. CONCLUSION:CAD has the potential to detect approximately half of the lesions overlooked by human readers at chest radiography. (c) RSNA, 2009.
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: Annemilia Del Ciello; Paola Franchi; Andrea Contegiacomo; Giuseppe Cicchetti; Lorenzo Bonomo; Anna Rita Larici Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2017 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.630