Computer-aided diagnosis as a second reader: spectrum of findings in CT studies of the chest interpreted as normal.

STUDY OBJECTIVES To assess the performance of an automated computer-aided detection (CAD) system as a second reader on chest CT studies interpreted as normal at routine clinical interpretation. DESIGN Chest CT studies were processed using a prototype CAD system for automated detection of lung lesions. Three experienced radiologists analyzed each CAD finding and confirmed or dismissed the marked image features as lung lesions. Noncalcified, focal lung lesions were classified according to size as being of high (> or = 10 mm), intermediate (5 to 9 mm), or low (< or = 4 mm) significance. SETTING Two sub-specialized academic tertiary referral centers in the United States and Germany. PATIENTS Chest CT studies were performed in 100 patients, with results initially reported as normal at clinical double reading. Indications for chest CT were suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) [n = 33], lung cancer screening in a high-risk population (n = 28), or follow-up for a cancer history (n = 39). INTERVENTIONS Reevaluation of all chest CT studies for focal lung lesions with the CAD system as a second reader. MEASUREMENTS Prevalence and spectrum of lung lesions missed at routine clinical interpretation but found by the CAD system. RESULTS In 33% (33 of 100 patients), CAD detected significant lung lesions that were not previously reported. Fifty-three significant lesions were detected (mean, 1.6 lesions per case), of which 5 lesions (9.4%) were of high significance, 21 lesions (39.6%) were of intermediate significance, and 27 lesions (50.9%) were of low significance. In the PE group, the lung cancer screening group, and the group with a cancer history, four patients (12.1%), six patients (21.4%), and nine patients (23.1%), respectively, had focal lung lesions of high and/or intermediate significance. The false-positive rate of the CAD system was an average of 1.25 per case (range, 0 to 11). CONCLUSIONS Significant lung lesions are frequently missed at routine clinical interpretation of chest CT studies but may be detected if CAD is used as an additional reader.

[1]  K. Doi,et al.  Computer-aided diagnosis in chest radiography: results of large-scale observer tests at the 1996-2001 RSNA scientific assemblies. , 2003, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[2]  N Bosanquet,et al.  Assessment of automated primary screening on PAPNET of cervical smears in the PRISMATIC trial , 1999, The Lancet.

[3]  R. Warren,et al.  Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms , 1996, BMJ.

[4]  J. Orzel.  Correction of interpretive errors. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  H. Ohmatsu,et al.  Detection failures in spiral CT screening for lung cancer: analysis of CT findings. , 1999, Radiology.

[6]  A. L. Baker,et al.  Performance of four computer-based diagnostic systems. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  C. White,et al.  Missed lung cancer on chest radiography and computed tomography: imaging and medicolegal issues. , 1999, Journal of thoracic imaging.

[8]  S. Armato,et al.  Lung cancers missed at low-dose helical CT screening in a general population: comparison of clinical, histopathologic, and imaging findings. , 2002, Radiology.

[9]  K. Doi,et al.  Effect of a computer-aided diagnosis scheme on radiologists' performance in detection of lung nodules on radiographs. , 1996, Radiology.

[10]  K. Doi,et al.  Computer-aided diagnosis of pulmonary nodules: results of a large-scale observer test. , 1999, Radiology.

[11]  T. Freer,et al.  Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. , 2001, Radiology.

[12]  G. Gorry.  Prospects for computer-aided diagnosis. , 1969, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  J. Austin,et al.  Primary carcinoma of the lung overlooked at CT: analysis of findings in 14 patients. , 1996, Radiology.

[14]  R. Greene.  Missed lung nodules: lost opportunities for cancer cure. , 1992, Radiology.

[15]  J P Kassirer,et al.  A report card on computer-assisted diagnosis--the grade: C. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  J. Austin,et al.  Missed non-small cell lung cancer: radiographic findings of potentially resectable lesions evident only in retrospect. , 2003, Radiology.

[17]  GrahamC. Sutton,et al.  HOW ACCURATE IS COMPUTER-AIDED DIAGNOSIS? , 1989, The Lancet.

[18]  L. Berlin,et al.  Malpractice issues in radiology. Perceptual errors. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[19]  L. Quint.  Work-up of the solitary pulmonary nodule , 2003, Cancer Imaging.

[20]  P. Goddard,et al.  Error in radiology. , 2001, The British journal of radiology.

[21]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Error in radiology: classification and lessons in 182 cases presented at a problem case conference. , 1992, Radiology.

[22]  R. Castellino,et al.  Clinical importance of reinterpretation of body CT scans obtained elsewhere in patients referred for care at a tertiary cancer center. , 1999, Radiology.

[23]  L. Berlin,et al.  Malpractice and radiologists in Cook County, IL: trends in 20 years of litigation. , 1995, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[24]  R. Fitzgerald.  Error in radiology. , 2001, Clinical radiology.

[25]  S. Armato,et al.  Lung cancer: performance of automated lung nodule detection applied to cancers missed in a CT screening program. , 2002, Radiology.

[26]  T. McLoud,et al.  Work-up of the solitary pulmonary nodule. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria. , 2000, Radiology.

[27]  J. Gurney,et al.  Missed lung cancer at CT: imaging findings in nine patients. , 1996, Radiology.

[28]  L. Tabár,et al.  Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. , 2000, Radiology.

[29]  C. Douglas Maynard,et al.  ACR Appropriateness Criteria , 2000 .

[30]  L. Berlin,et al.  Perceptual errors and negligence. , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[31]  W. J. Tuddenham,et al.  Glossary of terms for thoracic radiology: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee of the Fleischner Society. , 1984, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.