OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to define clinically appropriate, computer-aided lung nodule detection (CAD) requirements and protocols based on recent screening trials. In the following paper, we describe a CAD evaluation methodology based on a publically available, annotated computed tomography (CT) image data set, and demonstrate the evaluation of a new CAD system with the functionality and performance required for adoption in clinical practice. METHODS: A new automated lung nodule detection and measurement system was developed that incorporates intensity thresholding, a Euclidean Distance Transformation, and segmentation based on watersheds. System performance was evaluated against the Lung Imaging Database Consortium (LIDC) CT reference data set. RESULTS: The test set comprised thin-section CT scans from 108 LIDC subjects. The median (±IQR) sensitivity per subject was 100 (±37.5) for nodules ≥ 4 mm and 100 (±8.33) for nodules ≥ 8 mm. The corresponding false positive rates were 0 (±2.0) and 0 (±1.0), respectively. The concordance correlation coefficient between the CAD nodule diameter and the LIDC reference was 0.91, and for volume it was 0.90. CONCLUSIONS: The new CAD system shows high nodule sensitivity with a low false positive rate. Automated volume measurements have strong agreement with the reference standard. Thus, it provides comprehensive, clinically-usable lung nodule detection and assessment functionality. KEY POINTS: • CAD requirements can be based on lung cancer screening trial results. • CAD systems can be evaluated using publically available annotated CT image databases. • A new CAD system was developed with a low false positive rate. • The CAD system has reliable measurement tools needed for clinical use.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to define clinically appropriate, computer-aided lung nodule detection (CAD) requirements and protocols based on recent screening trials. In the following paper, we describe a CAD evaluation methodology based on a publically available, annotated computed tomography (CT) image data set, and demonstrate the evaluation of a new CAD system with the functionality and performance required for adoption in clinical practice. METHODS: A new automated lung nodule detection and measurement system was developed that incorporates intensity thresholding, a Euclidean Distance Transformation, and segmentation based on watersheds. System performance was evaluated against the Lung Imaging Database Consortium (LIDC) CT reference data set. RESULTS: The test set comprised thin-section CT scans from 108 LIDC subjects. The median (±IQR) sensitivity per subject was 100 (±37.5) for nodules ≥ 4 mm and 100 (±8.33) for nodules ≥ 8 mm. The corresponding false positive rates were 0 (±2.0) and 0 (±1.0), respectively. The concordance correlation coefficient between the CAD nodule diameter and the LIDC reference was 0.91, and for volume it was 0.90. CONCLUSIONS: The new CAD system shows high nodule sensitivity with a low false positive rate. Automated volume measurements have strong agreement with the reference standard. Thus, it provides comprehensive, clinically-usable lung nodule detection and assessment functionality. KEY POINTS: • CAD requirements can be based on lung cancer screening trial results. • CAD systems can be evaluated using publically available annotated CT image databases. • A new CAD system was developed with a low false positive rate. • The CAD system has reliable measurement tools needed for clinical use.
Authors: Matthew S Brown; Jonathan G Goldin; Robert D Suh; Michael F McNitt-Gray; James W Sayre; Denise R Aberle Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M S Brown; M F McNitt-Gray; N J Mankovich; J G Goldin; J Hiller; L S Wilson; D R Aberle Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 1997-12 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Rob J van Klaveren; Matthijs Oudkerk; Mathias Prokop; Ernst T Scholten; Kristiaan Nackaerts; Rene Vernhout; Carola A van Iersel; Karien A M van den Bergh; Susan van 't Westeinde; Carlijn van der Aalst; Erik Thunnissen; Dong Ming Xu; Ying Wang; Yingru Zhao; Hester A Gietema; Bart-Jan de Hoop; Harry J M Groen; Geertruida H de Bock; Peter van Ooijen; Carla Weenink; Johny Verschakelen; Jan-Willem J Lammers; Wim Timens; Dik Willebrand; Aryan Vink; Willem Mali; Harry J de Koning Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-12-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Claudia I Henschke; David F Yankelevitz; David P Naidich; Dorothy I McCauley; Georgeann McGuinness; Daniel M Libby; James P Smith; Mark W Pasmantier; Olli S Miettinen Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-02-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: E Lopez Torres; E Fiorina; F Pennazio; C Peroni; M Saletta; N Camarlinghi; M E Fantacci; P Cerello Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: John Hoffman; Nastaran Emaminejad; Muhammad Wahi-Anwar; Grace H Kim; Matthew Brown; Stefano Young; Michael McNitt-Gray Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-04-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Stefano Young; Pechin Lo; Grace Kim; Matthew Brown; John Hoffman; William Hsu; Wasil Wahi-Anwar; Carlos Flores; Grace Lee; Frederic Noo; Jonathan Goldin; Michael McNitt-Gray Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Ramandeep Singh; Mannudeep K Kalra; Fatemeh Homayounieh; Chayanin Nitiwarangkul; Shaunagh McDermott; Brent P Little; Inga T Lennes; Jo-Anne O Shepard; Subba R Digumarthy Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-04
Authors: Nastaran Emaminejad; Muhammad Wasil Wahi-Anwar; Grace Hyun J Kim; William Hsu; Matthew Brown; Michael McNitt-Gray Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Heiner Oberkampf; Sonja Zillner; James A Overton; Bernhard Bauer; Alexander Cavallaro; Michael Uder; Matthias Hammon Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2016-01-22 Impact factor: 2.796