Polyp characteristics correctly annotated by computer-aided detection software but ignored by reporting radiologists during CT colonography.

PURPOSE To retrospectively describe the characteristics of polyps incorrectly dismissed by radiologists despite appropriate computer-aided detection (CAD) prompting during computed tomographic (CT) colonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS Ethics committee approval and patient informed consent were obtained from institutions that provided the data sets used in this HIPAA-compliant study. A total of 111 polyps that had a diameter of at least 6 mm and were detected with CAD were collated from three previous studies in which researchers investigated radiologist performance with and without CAD (total, 25 readers). Two new observers graded each polyp with predefined criteria, including polyp size, morphology, and location; data set quality; ease of visualization; tagging use and polyp coating; colonic curvature; CAD mark obscuration; and number of false-positive findings. The 86 polyps that were missed before CAD (those that were unreported by one or more original readers) were divided into those that remained unreported after CAD (no CAD gain, n = 36) and those that were reported correctly by at least one additional reader (CAD gain, n = 50). Logistic-regression analysis and the Fisher exact and Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare the results of both groups with each other and with a control group of 25 polyps, all of which were detected by readers without CAD. RESULTS Before CAD, polyps 10 mm in diameter or larger, those that were rated easy to visualize, and those that were uncoated by tagged fluid were less likely to be missed (72%, 76%, and 80% of control polyps vs 43%, 43%, and 59% of missed polyps, respectively; P < .001, P < .01, and P < .03, respectively). After CAD, the odds of CAD gain decreased with increasing polyp size (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval: 0.85, 1.00; P = .04) and irregular morphology (odds ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval: 0.08, 0.92; P = .04). CONCLUSION Larger irregular polyps are a common source of incorrect radiologist dismissal, despite correct CAD prompting.

[1]  Damian Tolan,et al.  Influence of computer-aided detection false-positives on reader performance and diagnostic confidence for CT colonography. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  Stuart A. Taylor,et al.  Computed tomographic colonography: assessment of radiologist performance with and without computer-aided detection. , 2006, Gastroenterology.

[3]  Michael Macari,et al.  CT colonography: where have we been and where are we going? , 2005, Radiology.

[4]  T. Muto,et al.  The evolution of cancer of the colon and rectum , 1974, Cancer.

[5]  Stuart A. Taylor,et al.  CT colonography: effect of experience and training on reader performance , 2004, European Radiology.

[6]  F. Earnest,et al.  Understanding interpretive errors in radiologists learning computed tomography colonography. , 2004, Academic radiology.

[7]  Kenji Suzuki,et al.  CT colonography: false-negative interpretations. , 2007, Radiology.

[8]  N. Obuchowski,et al.  Computer-aided detection of colorectal polyps: can it improve sensitivity of less-experienced readers? Preliminary findings. , 2007, Radiology.

[9]  A. Graser,et al.  Effect of computer-aided detection as a second reader in multidetector-row CT colonography , 2007, European Radiology.

[10]  J G Fletcher,et al.  Characterization of lesions missed on interpretation of CT colonography using a 2D search method. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  N. Petrick,et al.  CT colonography with computer-aided detection as a second reader: observer performance study. , 2008, Radiology.

[12]  Stuart A. Taylor,et al.  CT colonography and computer-aided detection: effect of false-positive results on reader specificity and reading efficiency in a low-prevalence screening population. , 2008, Radiology.

[13]  Stuart A. Taylor,et al.  CT colonography: investigation of the optimum reader paradigm by using computer-aided detection software. , 2008, Radiology.

[14]  Karen M Horton,et al.  Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  R. Summers,et al.  Oral Contrast Adherence to Polyps on CT Colonography , 2006, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[16]  Joel G Fletcher,et al.  Formative evaluation of standardized training for CT colonographic image interpretation by novice readers. , 2008, Radiology.

[17]  Judy Yee,et al.  Reader training in CT colonography: how much is enough? , 2005, Radiology.

[18]  Stuart A. Taylor,et al.  Reader error during CT colonography: causes and implications for training , 2006, European Radiology.

[19]  Stuart A. Taylor,et al.  Computer-assisted reader software versus expert reviewers for polyp detection on CT colonography. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.