Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 4/2009

Open Access 01-04-2009 | Gastrointestinal

Does a computer-aided detection algorithm in a second read paradigm enhance the performance of experienced computed tomography colonography readers in a population of increased risk?

Authors: Ayso H. de Vries, Sebastiaan Jensch, Marjolein H. Liedenbaum, Jasper Florie, Chung Y. Nio, Roel Truyen, Shandra Bipat, Evelien Dekker, Paul Fockens, Lubbertus C. Baak, Jaap Stoker

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 4/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

We prospectively determined whether computer-aided detection (CAD) could improve the performance characteristics of computed tomography colonography (CTC) in a population of increased risk for colorectal cancer. Therefore, we included 170 consecutive patients that underwent both CTC and colonoscopy. All findings ≥6 mm were evaluated at colonoscopy by segmental unblinding. We determined per-patient sensitivity and specificity for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm without and with computer-aided detection (CAD). The McNemar test was used for comparison the results without and with CAD. Unblinded colonoscopy detected 50 patients with lesions ≥6 mm and 25 patients with lesions ≥10 mm. Sensitivity of CTC without CAD for these size categories was 80% (40/50, 95% CI: 69–81%) and 64% (16/25, 95% CI: 45–83%), respectively. CTC with CAD detected one additional patient with a lesion ≥6 mm and two with a lesion ≥10 mm, resulting in a sensitivity of 82% (41/50, 95% CI: 71–93%) (p = 0.50) and 72% (18/25, 95% CI: 54–90%) (p = 1.0), respectively. Specificity without CAD for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm was 84% (101/120, 95% CI: 78–91%) and 94% (136/145, 95% CI: 90–98%), respectively. With CAD, the specificity remained (nearly) unchanged: 83% (99/120, 95% CI: 76–89%) and 94% (136/145, 95% CI: 90–98%), respectively. Thus, although CTC with CAD detected a few more patients than CTC without CAD, it had no statistically significant positive influence on CTC performance.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al (2008) Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology 134:1570–1595PubMedCrossRef Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al (2008) Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology 134:1570–1595PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Summers RM, Yao J, Pickhardt PJ et al (2005) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy computer-aided polyp detection in a screening population. Gastroenterology 129:1832–1844PubMedCrossRef Summers RM, Yao J, Pickhardt PJ et al (2005) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy computer-aided polyp detection in a screening population. Gastroenterology 129:1832–1844PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Yoshida H, Nappi J, MacEneaney P, Rubin DT, Dachman AH (2002) Computer-aided diagnosis scheme for detection of polyps at CT colonography. Radiographics 22:963–979PubMed Yoshida H, Nappi J, MacEneaney P, Rubin DT, Dachman AH (2002) Computer-aided diagnosis scheme for detection of polyps at CT colonography. Radiographics 22:963–979PubMed
4.
go back to reference Jerebko AK, Summers RM, Malley JD, Franaszek M, Johnson CD (2003) Computer-assisted detection of colonic polyps with CT colonography using neural networks and binary classification trees. Med Phys 30:52–60PubMedCrossRef Jerebko AK, Summers RM, Malley JD, Franaszek M, Johnson CD (2003) Computer-assisted detection of colonic polyps with CT colonography using neural networks and binary classification trees. Med Phys 30:52–60PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Mani A, Napel S, Paik DS et al (2004) Computed tomography colonography: feasibility of computer-aided polyp detection in a “first reader” paradigm. J Comput Assist Tomogr 28:318–326PubMedCrossRef Mani A, Napel S, Paik DS et al (2004) Computed tomography colonography: feasibility of computer-aided polyp detection in a “first reader” paradigm. J Comput Assist Tomogr 28:318–326PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Summers RM, Jerebko AK, Franaszek M, Malley JD, Johnson CD (2001) Complementary role of computer-aided diagnosis for detecting colonic polyps with CT colonography. Radiology 120:391–399 Summers RM, Jerebko AK, Franaszek M, Malley JD, Johnson CD (2001) Complementary role of computer-aided diagnosis for detecting colonic polyps with CT colonography. Radiology 120:391–399
7.
go back to reference Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D et al (2006) Computer-assisted reader software versus expert reviewers for polyp detection on CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:696–702PubMedCrossRef Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D et al (2006) Computer-assisted reader software versus expert reviewers for polyp detection on CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:696–702PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Halligan S, Altman DG, Mallett S et al (2006) Computed tomographic colonography: assessment of radiologist performance with and without computer-aided detection. Gastroenterology 131:1690–1699PubMedCrossRef Halligan S, Altman DG, Mallett S et al (2006) Computed tomographic colonography: assessment of radiologist performance with and without computer-aided detection. Gastroenterology 131:1690–1699PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Taylor SA, Charman SC, Lefere P et al (2008) CT colonography: investigation of the optimum reader paradigm by using computer-aided detection software. Radiology 246:463–471PubMedCrossRef Taylor SA, Charman SC, Lefere P et al (2008) CT colonography: investigation of the optimum reader paradigm by using computer-aided detection software. Radiology 246:463–471PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Halligan S, Altman DG, Mallett S et al (2006) Computed tomographic colonography: assessment of radiologist performance with and without computer-aided detection. Gastroenterology 131:1690–1699PubMedCrossRef Halligan S, Altman DG, Mallett S et al (2006) Computed tomographic colonography: assessment of radiologist performance with and without computer-aided detection. Gastroenterology 131:1690–1699PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Baker ME, Bogoni L, Obuchowski NA et al (2007) Computer-aided detection of colorectal polyps: can it improve sensitivity of less-experienced readers? Preliminary findings. Radiology 245:140–149PubMedCrossRef Baker ME, Bogoni L, Obuchowski NA et al (2007) Computer-aided detection of colorectal polyps: can it improve sensitivity of less-experienced readers? Preliminary findings. Radiology 245:140–149PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Nicholas Petrick P, Maruf Haider M, Ronald M, Summers MP et al (2008) CT colonography with computer-aided detection as a second reader: observer performance study. Radiology 246:148–156PubMedCrossRef Nicholas Petrick P, Maruf Haider M, Ronald M, Summers MP et al (2008) CT colonography with computer-aided detection as a second reader: observer performance study. Radiology 246:148–156PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Mang T, Peloschek P, Plank C et al (2007) Effect of computer-aided detection as a second reader in multidetector-row CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:2598–2607PubMedCrossRef Mang T, Peloschek P, Plank C et al (2007) Effect of computer-aided detection as a second reader in multidetector-row CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:2598–2607PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Mang T, Peloschek P, Plank C et al (2007) Effect of computer-aided detection as a second reader in multidetector-row CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:2598–2607PubMedCrossRef Mang T, Peloschek P, Plank C et al (2007) Effect of computer-aided detection as a second reader in multidetector-row CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:2598–2607PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Taylor SA, Charman SC, Lefere P et al (2008) CT colonography: investigation of the optimum reader paradigm by using computer-aided detection software. Radiology 246:463–471PubMedCrossRef Taylor SA, Charman SC, Lefere P et al (2008) CT colonography: investigation of the optimum reader paradigm by using computer-aided detection software. Radiology 246:463–471PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference de Vries AH, Peters J, Grigorescu S, Truyen R, Gerritsen FA, Stoker J (2005) The performance of CAD versus the performance of an expert in CT colonography. Proc Sixth Int Symp Virtual Colonoscopy, Boston, p 189 de Vries AH, Peters J, Grigorescu S, Truyen R, Gerritsen FA, Stoker J (2005) The performance of CAD versus the performance of an expert in CT colonography. Proc Sixth Int Symp Virtual Colonoscopy, Boston, p 189
17.
go back to reference Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I et al (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349:2191–2200PubMedCrossRef Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I et al (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349:2191–2200PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Vos FM, van Gelder RE, Serlie IW et al (2003) Three-dimensional display modes for CT colonography: conventional 3D virtual colonoscopy versus unfolded cube projection. Radiology 228:878–885PubMedCrossRef Vos FM, van Gelder RE, Serlie IW et al (2003) Three-dimensional display modes for CT colonography: conventional 3D virtual colonoscopy versus unfolded cube projection. Radiology 228:878–885PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference van Gelder RE, Nio CY, Florie J et al (2004) Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 127:41–48PubMedCrossRef van Gelder RE, Nio CY, Florie J et al (2004) Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 127:41–48PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002 (2003). Gastrointest Endosc 58:S3–43 The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002 (2003). Gastrointest Endosc 58:S3–43
21.
go back to reference Fennerty MB, Davidson J, Emerson SS, Sampliner RE, Hixson LJ, Garewal HS (1993) Are endoscopic measurements of colonic polyps reliable? Am J Gastroenterol 88:496–500PubMed Fennerty MB, Davidson J, Emerson SS, Sampliner RE, Hixson LJ, Garewal HS (1993) Are endoscopic measurements of colonic polyps reliable? Am J Gastroenterol 88:496–500PubMed
22.
go back to reference Gopalswamy N, Shenoy VN, Choudhry U et al (1997) Is in vivo measurement of size of polyps during colonoscopy accurate? Gastrointest Endosc 46:497–502PubMedCrossRef Gopalswamy N, Shenoy VN, Choudhry U et al (1997) Is in vivo measurement of size of polyps during colonoscopy accurate? Gastrointest Endosc 46:497–502PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Jensch S, de Vries AH, Peringa J et al (2008) CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: performance characteristics in an increased-risk population. Radiology 247:122–132 Jensch S, de Vries AH, Peringa J et al (2008) CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: performance characteristics in an increased-risk population. Radiology 247:122–132
24.
go back to reference MacCarty RL, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, Wilson LA (2006) Occult colorectal polyps on CT colonography: implications for surveillance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1380–1383PubMedCrossRef MacCarty RL, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, Wilson LA (2006) Occult colorectal polyps on CT colonography: implications for surveillance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1380–1383PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Baker ME, Bogoni L, Obuchowski NA et al (2007) Computer-aided detection of colorectal polyps: can it improve sensitivity of less-experienced readers? Preliminary findings. Radiology 245:140–149PubMedCrossRef Baker ME, Bogoni L, Obuchowski NA et al (2007) Computer-aided detection of colorectal polyps: can it improve sensitivity of less-experienced readers? Preliminary findings. Radiology 245:140–149PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Halligan S, Altman DG, Mallett S et al (2006) Computed tomographic colonography: assessment of radiologist performance with and without computer-aided detection. Gastroenterology 131:1690–1699PubMedCrossRef Halligan S, Altman DG, Mallett S et al (2006) Computed tomographic colonography: assessment of radiologist performance with and without computer-aided detection. Gastroenterology 131:1690–1699PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Mang T, Peloschek P, Plank C et al (2007) Effect of computer-aided detection as a second reader in multidetector-row CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:2598–2607PubMedCrossRef Mang T, Peloschek P, Plank C et al (2007) Effect of computer-aided detection as a second reader in multidetector-row CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:2598–2607PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Burling D, Halligan S, Altman DG et al (2006) CT colonography interpretation times: effect of reader experience, fatigue, and scan findings in a multi-centre setting. Eur Radiol 16:1745–1749PubMedCrossRef Burling D, Halligan S, Altman DG et al (2006) CT colonography interpretation times: effect of reader experience, fatigue, and scan findings in a multi-centre setting. Eur Radiol 16:1745–1749PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Johnson CD, Toledano AY, Herman BA et al (2003) Computerized tomographic colonography: Performance evaluation in a retrospective multicenter setting. Gastroenterology 125:688–695PubMedCrossRef Johnson CD, Toledano AY, Herman BA et al (2003) Computerized tomographic colonography: Performance evaluation in a retrospective multicenter setting. Gastroenterology 125:688–695PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Mang T, Peloschek P, Plank C et al (2007) Effect of computer-aided detection as a second reader in multidetector-row CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:2598–2607PubMedCrossRef Mang T, Peloschek P, Plank C et al (2007) Effect of computer-aided detection as a second reader in multidetector-row CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:2598–2607PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Taylor SA, Charman SC, Lefere P et al (2008) CT colonography: investigation of the optimum reader paradigm by using computer-aided detection software. Radiology 246:463–471PubMedCrossRef Taylor SA, Charman SC, Lefere P et al (2008) CT colonography: investigation of the optimum reader paradigm by using computer-aided detection software. Radiology 246:463–471PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Fidler JL, Fletcher JG, Johnson CD et al (2004) Understanding interpretive errors in radiologists learning computed tomography colonography. Acad Radiol 11:750–756PubMedCrossRef Fidler JL, Fletcher JG, Johnson CD et al (2004) Understanding interpretive errors in radiologists learning computed tomography colonography. Acad Radiol 11:750–756PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Gluecker TM, Fletcher JG, Welch TJ et al (2004) Characterization of lesions missed on interpretation of CT colonography using a 2D search method. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:881–889PubMed Gluecker TM, Fletcher JG, Welch TJ et al (2004) Characterization of lesions missed on interpretation of CT colonography using a 2D search method. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:881–889PubMed
34.
go back to reference MacCarty RL, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, Wilson LA (2006) Occult colorectal polyps on CT colonography: implications for surveillance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1380–1383PubMedCrossRef MacCarty RL, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, Wilson LA (2006) Occult colorectal polyps on CT colonography: implications for surveillance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1380–1383PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Mang T, Peloschek P, Plank C et al (2007) Effect of computer-aided detection as a second reader in multidetector-row CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:2598–2607PubMedCrossRef Mang T, Peloschek P, Plank C et al (2007) Effect of computer-aided detection as a second reader in multidetector-row CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:2598–2607PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Taylor SA, Charman SC, Lefere P et al (2008) CT colonography: investigation of the optimum reader paradigm by using computer-aided detection software. Radiology 246:463–471PubMedCrossRef Taylor SA, Charman SC, Lefere P et al (2008) CT colonography: investigation of the optimum reader paradigm by using computer-aided detection software. Radiology 246:463–471PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference van Gelder RE, Florie J, Nio CY et al (2007) A comparison of primary two- and three-dimensional methods to review CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:1181–1192PubMedCrossRef van Gelder RE, Florie J, Nio CY et al (2007) A comparison of primary two- and three-dimensional methods to review CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:1181–1192PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Pickhardt PJ, Lee AD, Taylor AJ et al (2007) Primary 2D versus primary 3D polyp detection at screening CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:1451–1456PubMedCrossRef Pickhardt PJ, Lee AD, Taylor AJ et al (2007) Primary 2D versus primary 3D polyp detection at screening CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:1451–1456PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Does a computer-aided detection algorithm in a second read paradigm enhance the performance of experienced computed tomography colonography readers in a population of increased risk?
Authors
Ayso H. de Vries
Sebastiaan Jensch
Marjolein H. Liedenbaum
Jasper Florie
Chung Y. Nio
Roel Truyen
Shandra Bipat
Evelien Dekker
Paul Fockens
Lubbertus C. Baak
Jaap Stoker
Publication date
01-04-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 4/2009
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1215-3

Other articles of this Issue 4/2009

European Radiology 4/2009 Go to the issue