Amirhossein Mozaffary1, Tugce Agirlar Trabzonlu1, Pamela Lombardi1, Adeel R Seyal1, Rishi Agrawal1, Vahid Yaghmai2. 1. Department of Radiology, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Northwestern University-Feinberg School of Medicine, 676 North Saint Clair Street Suite 800, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Northwestern University-Feinberg School of Medicine, 676 North Saint Clair Street Suite 800, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. v-yaghmai@northwestern.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of implementing fully automated computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) for detection of pulmonary nodules on CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) studies in emergency setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CTPA of 48 emergency patients was retrospectively reviewed. Fully automated CAD nodule detection was performed at the scanner and results were automatically submitted to PACS. A third-year radiology resident (RAD1) and a cardiothoracic radiologist with 6 years' experience (RAD2) reviewed the scans independently to detect pulmonary nodules in two different sessions 8 weeks apart: session 1, CAD was reviewed first and then all images were reviewed; session 2, CAD was reviewed last after all images were reviewed. Time spent by RAD to evaluate image sets was measured for each case. Fisher's exact test and t test were used. RESULTS: There were 17 male and 31 female patients with mean ± SD age of 48.7 ± 16.4 years. Using CAD at the beginning was associated with lower average reading time for both readers. However, difference in reading time did not reach statistical significance for RAD1 (RAD1 94.6 s vs. 102.7 s, P > 0.05; RAD2 61.1 s vs. 76.5 s, P < 0.05). Using CAD at the end significantly increased rate of RAD1 and RAD2 nodule detection by 34% (2.52 vs. 2.12 nodule/scan, P < 0.05) and 27% (2.23 vs. 1.81 nodule/scan, P < 0.05), respectively. CONCLUSION: Routine utilization of CAD in emergency setting is feasible and can improve detection rate of pulmonary nodules significantly. Different methods of incorporating CAD in detecting pulmonary nodules can improve both the rate of detection and interpretation speed.
PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of implementing fully automated computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) for detection of pulmonary nodules on CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) studies in emergency setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS:CTPA of 48 emergency patients was retrospectively reviewed. Fully automated CAD nodule detection was performed at the scanner and results were automatically submitted to PACS. A third-year radiology resident (RAD1) and a cardiothoracic radiologist with 6 years' experience (RAD2) reviewed the scans independently to detect pulmonary nodules in two different sessions 8 weeks apart: session 1, CAD was reviewed first and then all images were reviewed; session 2, CAD was reviewed last after all images were reviewed. Time spent by RAD to evaluate image sets was measured for each case. Fisher's exact test and t test were used. RESULTS: There were 17 male and 31 female patients with mean ± SD age of 48.7 ± 16.4 years. Using CAD at the beginning was associated with lower average reading time for both readers. However, difference in reading time did not reach statistical significance for RAD1 (RAD1 94.6 s vs. 102.7 s, P > 0.05; RAD2 61.1 s vs. 76.5 s, P < 0.05). Using CAD at the end significantly increased rate of RAD1 and RAD2 nodule detection by 34% (2.52 vs. 2.12 nodule/scan, P < 0.05) and 27% (2.23 vs. 1.81 nodule/scan, P < 0.05), respectively. CONCLUSION: Routine utilization of CAD in emergency setting is feasible and can improve detection rate of pulmonary nodules significantly. Different methods of incorporating CAD in detecting pulmonary nodules can improve both the rate of detection and interpretation speed.
Authors: Luca Bogoni; Jane P Ko; Jeffrey Alpert; Vikram Anand; John Fantauzzi; Charles H Florin; Chi Wan Koo; Derek Mason; William Rom; Maria Shiau; Marcos Salganicoff; David P Naidich Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: M Das; G Mühlenbruch; S Heinen; A H Mahnken; M Salganicoff; S Stanzel; R W Günther; J E Wildberger Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Heber MacMahon; David P Naidich; Jin Mo Goo; Kyung Soo Lee; Ann N C Leung; John R Mayo; Atul C Mehta; Yoshiharu Ohno; Charles A Powell; Mathias Prokop; Geoffrey D Rubin; Cornelia M Schaefer-Prokop; William D Travis; Paul E Van Schil; Alexander A Bankier Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-02-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Matthew S Brown; Jonathan G Goldin; Sarah Rogers; Hyun J Kim; Robert D Suh; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Sumit K Shah; Dao Truong; Kathleen Brown; James W Sayre; David W Gjertson; Poonam Batra; Denise R Aberle Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Kevin S Berbaum; Kevin M Schartz; Robert T Caldwell; Mark T Madsen; Brad H Thompson; Brian F Mullan; Andrew N Ellingson; Edmund A Franken Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2012-10-26 Impact factor: 3.173