OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of computer-aided detection (CAD) as a second reader or concurrent reader in helping radiologists who are moderately experienced in computed tomographic colonography (CTC) to detect colorectal polyps. METHODS: Seventy CTC datasets (34 patients: 66 polyps ≥6 mm; 36 patients: no abnormalities) were retrospectively reviewed by seven radiologists with moderate CTC experience. After primary unassisted evaluation, a CAD second read and, after a time interval of ≥4 weeks, a CAD concurrent read were performed. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), along with per-segment, per-polyp and per-patient sensitivities, and also reading times, were calculated for each reader with and without CAD. RESULTS: Of seven readers, 86% and 71% achieved a higher accuracy (segment-level AUC) when using CAD as second and concurrent reader respectively. Average segment-level AUCs with second and concurrent CAD (0.853 and 0.864) were significantly greater (p < 0.0001) than average AUC in the unaided evaluation (0.781). Per-segment, per-polyp, and per-patient sensitivities for polyps ≥6 mm were significantly higher in both CAD reading paradigms compared with unaided evaluation. Second-read CAD reduced readers' average segment and patient specificity by 0.007 and 0.036 (p = 0.005 and 0.011), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CAD significantly improves the sensitivities of radiologists moderately experienced in CTC for polyp detection, both as second reader and concurrent reader. KEY POINTS: • CAD helps radiologists with moderate CTC experience to detect polyps ≥6 mm. • Second and concurrent read CAD increase the radiologist's sensitivity for detecting polyps ≥6 mm. • Second read CAD slightly decreases specificity compared with an unassisted read. • Concurrent read CAD is significantly more time-efficient than second read CAD.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of computer-aided detection (CAD) as a second reader or concurrent reader in helping radiologists who are moderately experienced in computed tomographic colonography (CTC) to detect colorectal polyps. METHODS: Seventy CTC datasets (34 patients: 66 polyps ≥6 mm; 36 patients: no abnormalities) were retrospectively reviewed by seven radiologists with moderate CTC experience. After primary unassisted evaluation, a CAD second read and, after a time interval of ≥4 weeks, a CAD concurrent read were performed. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), along with per-segment, per-polyp and per-patient sensitivities, and also reading times, were calculated for each reader with and without CAD. RESULTS: Of seven readers, 86% and 71% achieved a higher accuracy (segment-level AUC) when using CAD as second and concurrent reader respectively. Average segment-level AUCs with second and concurrent CAD (0.853 and 0.864) were significantly greater (p < 0.0001) than average AUC in the unaided evaluation (0.781). Per-segment, per-polyp, and per-patient sensitivities for polyps ≥6 mm were significantly higher in both CAD reading paradigms compared with unaided evaluation. Second-read CAD reduced readers' average segment and patient specificity by 0.007 and 0.036 (p = 0.005 and 0.011), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CAD significantly improves the sensitivities of radiologists moderately experienced in CTC for polyp detection, both as second reader and concurrent reader. KEY POINTS: • CAD helps radiologists with moderate CTC experience to detect polyps ≥6 mm. • Second and concurrent read CAD increase the radiologist's sensitivity for detecting polyps ≥6 mm. • Second read CAD slightly decreases specificity compared with an unassisted read. • Concurrent read CAD is significantly more time-efficient than second read CAD.
Authors: Michael E Zalis; Matthew A Barish; J Richard Choi; Abraham H Dachman; Helen M Fenlon; Joseph T Ferrucci; Seth N Glick; Andrea Laghi; Michael Macari; Elizabeth G McFarland; Martina M Morrin; Perry J Pickhardt; Jorge Soto; Judy Yee Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: D Boone; S Halligan; R Frost; C Kay; A Laghi; P Lefere; E Neri; J Stoker; S A Taylor Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2011-03-04 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Steve Halligan; Susan Mallett; Douglas G Altman; Justine McQuillan; Maria Proud; Gareth Beddoe; Lesley Honeyfield; Stuart A Taylor Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Abraham H Dachman; Nancy A Obuchowski; Jeffrey W Hoffmeister; J Louis Hinshaw; Michael I Frew; Thomas C Winter; Robert L Van Uitert; Senthil Periaswamy; Ronald M Summers; Bruce J Hillman Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-07-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Daniele Regge; Cristiana Laudi; Giovanni Galatola; Patrizia Della Monica; Luigina Bonelli; Giuseppe Angelelli; Roberto Asnaghi; Brunella Barbaro; Carlo Bartolozzi; Didier Bielen; Luca Boni; Claudia Borghi; Paolo Bruzzi; Maria Carla Cassinis; Massimo Galia; Teresa Maria Gallo; Andrea Grasso; Cesare Hassan; Andrea Laghi; Maria Cristina Martina; Emanuele Neri; Carlo Senore; Giovanni Simonetti; Silvia Venturini; Giovanni Gandini Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-06-17 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Wendy Atkin; Edward Dadswell; Kate Wooldrage; Ines Kralj-Hans; Christian von Wagner; Rob Edwards; Guiqing Yao; Clive Kay; David Burling; Omar Faiz; Julian Teare; Richard J Lilford; Dion Morton; Jane Wardle; Steve Halligan Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Darren Boone; Susan Mallett; Justine McQuillan; Stuart A Taylor; Douglas G Altman; Steve Halligan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 3.240