Nonradiologists as second readers for intraluminal findings at CT colonography.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES Multiple trials have documented wide interobserver variability between radiologists interpreting computed tomography colonography (CTC) exams. We sought to determine if nonradiologists could learn to interpret intraluminal findings at CTC with a high degree of sensitivity to determine if they could play a role as second readers in interpreting CTC exams. MATERIALS AND METHODS Seven nonradiologists (five medical students, two radiologic technologists) undertook self-directed CTC training using a teaching file of 50 cases; thereafter, each reader blindly interpreted 50 cases with colonoscopic correlation (30 positive, 20 negative). Results were compared with a previously studied cohort of radiologists. The two technologists additionally repeated the exam after 6 weeks of clinical experience. RESULTS The sensitivity of nonradiologists for small (5-9 mm) polyps, large (>9 mm) lesions, and cancers was similar to that of radiologists (0.45 versus 0.63, 0.74 versus 0.71, and 0.80 versus 0.88, respectively). After 6 weeks of clinical experience as second readers, the accuracy of one technologist significantly improved (from 74% to 90%, P = .008), whereas accuracy of the other tended toward improvement (from 74% to 86%%, P = .25). Nonradiologists detected, on average, 6/36 additional polyps (17%) missed by any radiologist, and the sensitivity of 5/7 nonradiologists was significantly greater than at least one of the radiologists (P = .05). CONCLUSION Nonradiologists can perform similarly to radiologists in interpreting intraluminal findings at CTC, with nonradiologist performance improving even after experience with more than 100 cases. Skilled nonradiologists may play a vital role as a second reader of intraluminal findings or by performing quality control of examinations before patient dismissal.

[1]  C. Johnson,et al.  Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps. , 2003, Gastroenterology.

[2]  J. Ferrucci,et al.  A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

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

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

[5]  S D Wall,et al.  Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients. , 2001, Radiology.

[6]  Reto Meuli,et al.  Effect of investigator experience in CT colonography , 2002, European Radiology.

[7]  J. Burdick,et al.  Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. , 2004, JAMA.

[8]  C. Johnson,et al.  Comparison of the relative sensitivity of CT colonography and double-contrast barium enema for screen detection of colorectal polyps. , 2004, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[9]  M. Macari,et al.  Colorectal polyps and cancers in asymptomatic average-risk patients: evaluation with CT colonography. , 2004, Radiology.

[10]  M. Macari,et al.  Comparison of time-efficient CT colonography with two- and three-dimensional colonic evaluation for detecting colorectal polyps. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  K R Hoffmann,et al.  CT colonography with three-dimensional problem solving for detection of colonic polyps. , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

[13]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Stool Tagging Applied in Thin-slice Multidetector Computed Tomography Colonography , 2003, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[14]  G. Spinzi,et al.  Computed tomographic colonography and conventional colonoscopy for colon diseases: a prospective, blinded study. , 2001 .

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

[16]  E G McFarland,et al.  Spiral CT colonography: reader agreement and diagnostic performance with two- and three-dimensional image-display techniques. , 2001, Radiology.

[17]  S. Hughes,et al.  Double contrast barium enema sensitivity: a comparison of studies by radiographers and radiologists. , 2002, Clinical radiology.