CT colonography with computer-aided detection as a second reader: observer performance study.

PURPOSE To evaluate the effect of computer-aided detection (CAD) as second reader on radiologists' diagnostic performance in interpreting computed tomographic (CT) colonographic examinations by using a primary two-dimensional (2D) approach, with segmental, unblinded optical colonoscopy as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS This HIPAA-compliant study was IRB-approved with written informed consent. Four board-certified radiologists analyzed 60 CT examinations with a commercially available review system. Two-dimensional transverse views were used for initial polyp detection, while three-dimensional (3D) endoluminal and 2D multiplanar views were available for problem solving. After initial review without CAD, the reader was shown CAD-identified polyp candidates. The readers were then allowed to add to or modify their original diagnoses. Polyp location, CT Colonography Reporting and Data System categorization, and reader confidence as to the likelihood of a candidate being a polyp were recorded before and after CAD reading. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were estimated for CT examinations with and without CAD readings by using multireader multicase analysis. RESULTS Use of CAD led to nonsignificant average reader AUC increases of 0.03, 0.03, and 0.04 for patients with adenomatous polyps 6 mm or larger, 6-9 mm, and 10 mm or larger, respectively (P > or = .25); likewise, CAD increased average reader sensitivity by 0.15, 0.16, and 0.14 for those respective groups, with a corresponding decrease in specificity of 0.14. These changes achieved significance for the 6 mm or larger group (P < .01), 6-9 mm group (P < .02), and for specificity (P < .01), but not for the 10 mm or larger group (P > .16). The average reading time was 5.1 minutes +/- 3.4 (standard deviation) without CAD. CAD added an average of 3.1 minutes +/- 4.3 (62%) to each reading (supine and prone positions combined); average total reading time, 8.2 minutes +/- 5.8. CONCLUSION Use of CAD led to a significant increase in sensitivity for detecting polyps in the 6 mm or larger and 6-9 mm groups at the expense of a similar significant reduction in specificity.

[1]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Continuous versus categorical data for ROC analysis: some quantitative considerations. , 2001, Academic radiology.

[2]  P. Pickhardt,et al.  Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  J. Malley,et al.  Colonic polyps: complementary role of computer-aided detection in CT colonography. , 2002, Radiology.

[4]  J. Malley,et al.  Computer-assisted detection of colonic polyps with CT colonography using neural networks and binary classification trees. , 2002, Medical physics.

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

[6]  Jamshid Dehmeshki,et al.  Polyp detection with CT colonography: primary 3D endoluminal analysis versus primary 2D transverse analysis with computer-assisted reader software. , 2006, Radiology.

[7]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Components-of-variance models and multiple-bootstrap experiments: an alternative method for random-effects, receiver operating characteristic analysis. , 2000, Academic radiology.

[8]  Perry J Pickhardt,et al.  Electronic cleansing and stool tagging in CT colonography: advantages and pitfalls with primary three-dimensional evaluation. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  Julia R Fielding,et al.  Hypothesis testing I: proportions. , 2003, Radiology.

[10]  A. M. Youssef,et al.  Automated polyp detection at CT colonography: feasibility assessment in a human population. , 2001, Radiology.

[11]  R. Jeffrey,et al.  Automated polyp detector for CT colonography: feasibility study. , 2000, Radiology.

[12]  R. Jeffrey,et al.  CT colonography: influence of 3D viewing and polyp candidate features on interpretation with computer-aided detection. , 2006, Radiology.

[13]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. , 1992, Investigative radiology.

[14]  J. Yee,et al.  CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. , 2005, Radiology.

[15]  N. Obuchowski.  Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology. , 2003, Radiology.

[16]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Assessment methodologies and statistical issues for computer-aided diagnosis of lung nodules in computed tomography: contemporary research topics relevant to the lung image database consortium. , 2004, Academic radiology.

[17]  Charles E. Metz.  Fundamental ROC Analysis , 2000 .

[18]  Richard L. Morin.  Editorial: TRIPTM Update , 2004, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[19]  C E Metz,et al.  Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. , 1989, Investigative radiology.

[20]  K S Berbaum,et al.  Multireader, multicase receiver operating characteristic methodology: a bootstrap analysis. , 1995, Academic radiology.

[21]  I. Bitter,et al.  Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy computer-aided polyp detection in a screening population. , 2005, Gastroenterology.