PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of a computer-aided detection (CAD) algorithm on the performance of novice readers for detection of pulmonary embolism (PE) at CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included CTPA examinations of 79 patients (50 female, 52 ± 18 years). Studies were evaluated by two independent inexperienced readers who marked all vessels containing PE. After 3 months all studies were reevaluated by the same two readers, this time aided by CAD prototype. A consensus read by three expert radiologists served as the reference standard. Statistical analysis used χ(2) and McNemar testing. RESULTS: Expert consensus revealed 119 PEs in 32 studies. For PE detection, the sensitivity of CAD alone was 78%. Inexperienced readers' initial interpretations had an average per-PE sensitivity of 50%, which improved to 71% (p < 0.001) with CAD as a second reader. False positives increased from 0.18 to 0.25 per study (p = 0.03). Per-study, the readers initially detected 27/32 positive studies (84%); with CAD this number increased to 29.5 studies (92%; p = 0.125). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that CAD significantly improves the sensitivity of PE detection for inexperienced readers with a small but appreciable increase in the rate of false positives.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of a computer-aided detection (CAD) algorithm on the performance of novice readers for detection of pulmonary embolism (PE) at CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included CTPA examinations of 79 patients (50 female, 52 ± 18 years). Studies were evaluated by two independent inexperienced readers who marked all vessels containing PE. After 3 months all studies were reevaluated by the same two readers, this time aided by CAD prototype. A consensus read by three expert radiologists served as the reference standard. Statistical analysis used χ(2) and McNemar testing. RESULTS: Expert consensus revealed 119 PEs in 32 studies. For PE detection, the sensitivity of CAD alone was 78%. Inexperienced readers' initial interpretations had an average per-PE sensitivity of 50%, which improved to 71% (p < 0.001) with CAD as a second reader. False positives increased from 0.18 to 0.25 per study (p = 0.03). Per-study, the readers initially detected 27/32 positive studies (84%); with CAD this number increased to 29.5 studies (92%; p = 0.125). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that CAD significantly improves the sensitivity of PE detection for inexperienced readers with a small but appreciable increase in the rate of false positives.
Authors: Mark E Baker; Luca Bogoni; Nancy A Obuchowski; Chandra Dass; Renee M Kendzierski; Erick M Remer; David M Einstein; Pascal Cathier; Anna Jerebko; Sarang Lakare; Andrew Blum; Dina F Caroline; Michael Macari Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: U Joseph Schoepf; Alex C Schneider; Marco Das; Susan A Wood; Jugesh I Cheema; Philip Costello Journal: J Thorac Imaging Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 3.000
Authors: Long Jiang Zhang; Guang Ming Lu; Felix G Meinel; Andrew D McQuiston; James G Ravenel; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Peter Dankerl; Alexander Cavallaro; Matthias Dietzel; Alexey Tsymbal; Martin Kramer; Sascha Seifert; Michael Uder; Matthias Hammon Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2014-04-22 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Baptiste Vasey; Stephan Ursprung; Benjamin Beddoe; Elliott H Taylor; Neale Marlow; Nicole Bilbro; Peter Watkinson; Peter McCulloch Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-03-01
Authors: Matthias Hammon; Peter Dankerl; Alexey Tsymbal; Michael Wels; Michael Kelm; Matthias May; Michael Suehling; Michael Uder; Alexander Cavallaro Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-02-09 Impact factor: 5.315