Guy J Amir1, Harold P Lehmann2. 1. Division of Health Sciences Informatics, Johns Hopkins University, 2024 East Monument Street, Suite 1-200, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. 2. Division of Health Sciences Informatics, Johns Hopkins University, 2024 East Monument Street, Suite 1-200, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. Electronic address: lehmann@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the improved accuracy of radiologic assessment of lung cancer afforded by computer-aided diagnosis (CADx). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Inclusion/exclusion criteria were formulated, and a systematic inquiry of research databases was conducted. Following title and abstract review, an in-depth review of 149 surviving articles was performed with accepted articles undergoing a Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-based quality review and data abstraction. RESULTS: A total of 14 articles, representing 1868 scans, passed the review. Increases in the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve of .8 or higher were seen in all nine studies that reported it, except for one that employed subspecialized radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrated improved accuracy of lung cancer assessment using CADx over manual review, in eight high-quality observer-performance studies. The improved accuracy afforded by radiologic lung-CADx suggests the need to explore its use in screening and regular clinical workflow.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the improved accuracy of radiologic assessment of lung cancer afforded by computer-aided diagnosis (CADx). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Inclusion/exclusion criteria were formulated, and a systematic inquiry of research databases was conducted. Following title and abstract review, an in-depth review of 149 surviving articles was performed with accepted articles undergoing a Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-based quality review and data abstraction. RESULTS: A total of 14 articles, representing 1868 scans, passed the review. Increases in the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve of .8 or higher were seen in all nine studies that reported it, except for one that employed subspecialized radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrated improved accuracy of lung cancer assessment using CADx over manual review, in eight high-quality observer-performance studies. The improved accuracy afforded by radiologic lung-CADx suggests the need to explore its use in screening and regular clinical workflow.
Authors: L J Warren Burhenne; S A Wood; C J D'Orsi; S A Feig; D B Kopans; K F O'Shaughnessy; E A Sickles; L Tabar; C J Vyborny; R A Castellino Journal: Radiology Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Samuel G Armato; Michael B Altman; Joel Wilkie; Shusuke Sone; Feng Li; Kunio Doi; Arunabha S Roy Journal: Med Phys Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: S J Swensen; R W Viggiano; D E Midthun; N L Müller; A Sherrick; K Yamashita; D P Naidich; E F Patz; T E Hartman; J R Muhm; A L Weaver Journal: Radiology Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Michael Phillips; Renee N Cataneo; Andrew R C Cummin; Anthony J Gagliardi; Kevin Gleeson; Joel Greenberg; Roger A Maxfield; William N Rom Journal: Chest Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Penny Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Johannes B Reitsma; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Jos Kleijnen Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2003-11-10 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Johanna Uthoff; Matthew J Stephens; John D Newell; Eric A Hoffman; Jared Larson; Nicholas Koehn; Frank A De Stefano; Chrissy M Lusk; Angela S Wenzlaff; Donovan Watza; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Laurie L Carr; David A Lynch; Ann G Schwartz; Jessica C Sieren Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Shuihua Wang; Ming Yang; Sidan Du; Jiquan Yang; Bin Liu; Juan M Gorriz; Javier Ramírez; Ti-Fei Yuan; Yudong Zhang Journal: Front Comput Neurosci Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 2.380