PURPOSE: To compare primarily viewing axial images (Axial mode) versus coronal reconstruction images (Coronal mode) in computer-aided detection (CAD) of lung nodules on multidetector computed tomography (CT) in terms of detection performance and reading time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty CT data sets from two institutions were collected prospectively. Ten observers (6 radiologists, 4 pulmonologists) with varying degrees of experience interpreted the data sets using CAD as a second reader (performing nodule detection first without then with aid). The data sets were interpreted twice, once each for Axial and Coronal modes, in two sessions held 4 weeks apart. Jackknife free-response receiver-operating characteristic analysis was used to compare detection performances in the two modes. RESULTS: Mean figure-of-merit values with and without aid were 0.717 and 0.684 in Axial mode and 0.702 and 0.671 in Coronal mode; use of CAD significantly increased the performance of observers in both modes (P < 0.01). Mean reading times for radiologists did not significantly differ between Axial (156 ± 74 s) and Coronal mode (164 ± 69 s; P = 0.08). Mean reading times for pulmonologists were significantly lower in Coronal (112 ± 53 s) than in Axial mode (130 ± 80 s; P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant difference between Axial and Coronal modes for lung nodule detection with CAD.
PURPOSE: To compare primarily viewing axial images (Axial mode) versus coronal reconstruction images (Coronal mode) in computer-aided detection (CAD) of lung nodules on multidetector computed tomography (CT) in terms of detection performance and reading time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty CT data sets from two institutions were collected prospectively. Ten observers (6 radiologists, 4 pulmonologists) with varying degrees of experience interpreted the data sets using CAD as a second reader (performing nodule detection first without then with aid). The data sets were interpreted twice, once each for Axial and Coronal modes, in two sessions held 4 weeks apart. Jackknife free-response receiver-operating characteristic analysis was used to compare detection performances in the two modes. RESULTS: Mean figure-of-merit values with and without aid were 0.717 and 0.684 in Axial mode and 0.702 and 0.671 in Coronal mode; use of CAD significantly increased the performance of observers in both modes (P < 0.01). Mean reading times for radiologists did not significantly differ between Axial (156 ± 74 s) and Coronal mode (164 ± 69 s; P = 0.08). Mean reading times for pulmonologists were significantly lower in Coronal (112 ± 53 s) than in Axial mode (130 ± 80 s; P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant difference between Axial and Coronal modes for lung nodule detection with CAD.
Authors: Yingru Zhao; Geertruida H de Bock; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Rob J van Klaveren; Ying Wang; Luca Bogoni; Pim A de Jong; Willem P Mali; Peter M A van Ooijen; Matthijs Oudkerk Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-07-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sunyi Zheng; Ludo J Cornelissen; Xiaonan Cui; Xueping Jing; Raymond N J Veldhuis; Matthijs Oudkerk; Peter M A van Ooijen Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-12-30 Impact factor: 4.071