Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 7/2014

01-07-2014 | Gastrointestinal

CT colonography: effect of computer-aided detection of colonic polyps as a second and concurrent reader for general radiologists with moderate experience in CT colonography

Authors: Thomas Mang, Luca Bogoni, Vikram X. Anand, Dass Chandra, Andrew J. Curtin, Anna S. Lev-Toaff, Gerardo Hermosillo, Ralph Noah, Vikas Raykar, Marcos Salganicoff, Robert Shaw, Susan Summerton, Rafel F.R. Tappouni, Helmut Ringel, Michael Weber, Matthias Wolf, Nancy A. Obuchowski

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 7/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness of computer-aided detection (CAD) as a second reader or concurrent reader in helping radiologists who are moderately experienced in computed tomographic colonography (CTC) to detect colorectal polyps.

Methods

Seventy CTC datasets (34 patients: 66 polyps ≥6 mm; 36 patients: no abnormalities) were retrospectively reviewed by seven radiologists with moderate CTC experience. After primary unassisted evaluation, a CAD second read and, after a time interval of ≥4 weeks, a CAD concurrent read were performed. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), along with per-segment, per-polyp and per-patient sensitivities, and also reading times, were calculated for each reader with and without CAD.

Results

Of seven readers, 86 % and 71 % achieved a higher accuracy (segment-level AUC) when using CAD as second and concurrent reader respectively. Average segment-level AUCs with second and concurrent CAD (0.853 and 0.864) were significantly greater (p < 0.0001) than average AUC in the unaided evaluation (0.781). Per-segment, per-polyp, and per-patient sensitivities for polyps ≥6 mm were significantly higher in both CAD reading paradigms compared with unaided evaluation. Second-read CAD reduced readers’ average segment and patient specificity by 0.007 and 0.036 (p = 0.005 and 0.011), respectively.

Conclusions

CAD significantly improves the sensitivities of radiologists moderately experienced in CTC for polyp detection, both as second reader and concurrent reader.

Key Points

• CAD helps radiologists with moderate CTC experience to detect polyps ≥6 mm.
• Second and concurrent read CAD increase the radiologist’s sensitivity for detecting polyps ≥6 mm.
• Second read CAD slightly decreases specificity compared with an unassisted read.
• Concurrent read CAD is significantly more time-efficient than second read CAD.
Literature
1.
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
2.
3.
Graser A, Stieber P, Nagel D et al (2009) Comparison of CT colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population. Gut 58:241–248PubMedCrossRef
4.
Regge D, Laudi C, Galatola G et al (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomographic colonography for the detection of advanced neoplasia in individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer. JAMA 301:2453–2461PubMedCrossRef
5.
Atkin W, Dadswell E, Wooldrage K et al (2013) Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 381:1194–1202PubMedCrossRef
6.
Doshi T, Rusinak D, Halvorsen RA et al (2007) CT colonography: false-negative interpretations. Radiology 244:165–173PubMedCrossRef
7.
Fletcher JG, Chen MH, Herman BA et al (2010) Can radiologist training and testing ensure high performance in CT colonography? Lessons From the National CT Colonography Trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:117–125PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
8.
Liedenbaum MH, Bipat S, Bossuyt PM et al (2011) Evaluation of a standardized CT colonography training program for novice readers. Radiology 258:477–487PubMedCrossRef
9.
Dachman AH, Kelly KB, Zintsmaster MP et al (2008) Formative evaluation of standardized training for CT colonographic image interpretation by novice readers. Radiology 249:167–177PubMedCrossRef
10.
Boone D, Halligan S, Frost R et al (2011) CT colonography: who attends training? A survey of participants at educational workshops. Clin Radiol 66:510–516PubMedCrossRef
11.
Regge D, Halligan S (2013) CAD: how it works, how to use it, performance. Eur J Radiol 82:1171–1176PubMedCrossRef
12.
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
13.
Dachman AH, Obuchowski NA, Hoffmeister JW et al (2010) Effect of computer-aided detection for CT colonography in a multireader, multicase trial. Radiology 256:827–835PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
14.
Halligan S, Mallett S, Altman DG et al (2011) Incremental benefit of computer-aided detection when used as a second and concurrent reader of CT colonographic data: multiobserver study. Radiology 258:469–476PubMedCrossRef
15.
Graser A, Kolligs FT, Mang T et al (2007) Computer-aided detection in CT colonography: initial clinical experience using a prototype system. Eur Radiol 17:2608–2615PubMedCrossRef
16.
Plumb AA, Halligan S, Taylor SA et al (2013) CT colonography in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: national survey of current practice. Clin Radiol 68:479–487PubMedCrossRef
17.
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
18.
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
19.
Petrick N, Haider M, Summers RM et al (2008) CT colonography with computer-aided detection as a second reader: observer performance study. Radiology 246:148–156PubMedCrossRef
20.
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
21.
Regge D, Della Monica P, Galatola G et al (2013) Efficacy of computer-aided detection as a second reader for 6-9-mm lesions at CT colonography: multicenter prospective trial. Radiology 266:168–176PubMedCrossRef
22.
23.
24.
25.
American College of Radiology (2009) ACR practice guideline for the performance of computed tomography (CT) colonography in adults. ACR, Reston
26.
Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR et al (2005) CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology 236:3–9PubMedCrossRef
27.
Bogoni L, Cathier P, Dundar M et al (2005) Computer-aided detection (CAD) for CT colonography: a tool to address a growing need. Br J Radiol 78(Spec No 1):S57–S62PubMedCrossRef
28.
Obuchowski NA (2007) New methodological tools for multiple-reader ROC studies. Radiology 243:10–12PubMedCrossRef
29.
30.
Obuchowski NA (1998) On the comparison of correlated proportions for clustered data. Stat Med 17:1495–1507PubMedCrossRef
31.
Mang T, Bogoni L, Salganicoff M et al (2012) Computer-aided detection of colorectal polyps in CT colonography with and without fecal tagging: a stand-alone evaluation. Invest Radiol 47:99–108PubMedCrossRef
32.
Lawrence EM, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH et al (2010) Colorectal polyps: stand-alone performance of computer-aided detection in a large asymptomatic screening population. Radiology 256:791–798PubMedCrossRef
33.
Mang T, Gryspeerdt S, Schima W et al (2013) Evaluation of colonic lesions and pitfalls in CT colonography: a systematic approach based on morphology, attenuation and mobility. Eur J Radiol 82:1177–1186PubMedCrossRef
34.
De Vries AH, Jensch S, Liedenbaum MH et al (2009) 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? Eur Radiol 19:941–950PubMedCrossRef
35.
Neri E, Faggioni L, Regge D et al (2011) CT colonography: role of a second reader CAD paradigm in the initial training of radiologists. Eur J Radiol 80:303–309PubMedCrossRef
36.
Mang T, Hermosillo G, Wolf M et al (2012) Time-efficient CT colonography interpretation using an advanced image-gallery-based, computer-aided "first-reader" workflow for the detection of colorectal adenomas. Eur Radiol 22:2768–2779PubMedCrossRef
37.
Iussich G, Correale L, Senore C et al (2013) CT colonography: preliminary assessment of a double-read paradigm that uses computer-aided detection as the first reader. Radiology 268:743–751PubMedCrossRef
38.
Ryan JT, Haygood TM, Yamal JM et al (2011) The "memory effect" for repeated radiologic observations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:W985–W991PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
CT colonography: effect of computer-aided detection of colonic polyps as a second and concurrent reader for general radiologists with moderate experience in CT colonography
Authors
Thomas Mang
Luca Bogoni
Vikram X. Anand
Dass Chandra
Andrew J. Curtin
Anna S. Lev-Toaff
Gerardo Hermosillo
Ralph Noah
Vikas Raykar
Marcos Salganicoff
Robert Shaw
Susan Summerton
Rafel F.R. Tappouni
Helmut Ringel
Michael Weber
Matthias Wolf
Nancy A. Obuchowski
Publication date
01-07-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 7/2014
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3158-1

Other articles of this Issue 7/2014

European Radiology 7/2014 Go to the issue

Breast

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme

Cardiac

Feasibility of prospectively ECG-triggered high-pitch coronary CT angiography with 30 mL iodinated contrast agent at 70 kVp: initial experience

Musculoskeletal

Feasibility of in vivo diffusion tensor imaging of articular cartilage with coverage of all cartilage regions

Ultrasound

Assessment of renal tissue elasticity by acoustic radiation force impulse quantification with histopathological correlation: preliminary experience in chronic kidney disease

Magnetic Resonance

Reproducibility, and age, body-weight and gender dependency of candidate skeletal muscle MRI outcome measures in healthy volunteers

Cardiac

Cardiac valve calcifications on low-dose unenhanced ungated chest computed tomography: inter-observer and inter-examination reliability, agreement and variability