Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Japanese Journal of Radiology 5/2013

01-05-2013 | Original Article

Comparative performance of a primary-reader and second-reader paradigm of computer-aided detection for CT colonography in a low-prevalence screening population

Authors: Mototaka Miyake, Gen Iinuma, Stuart A. Taylor, Steve Halligan, Tsuyoshi Morimoto, Tamaki Ichikawa, Hideto Tomimatsu, Gareth Beddoe, Kazuro Sugimura, Yasuaki Arai

Published in: Japanese Journal of Radiology | Issue 5/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To compare the efficacy of computer-aided detection (CAD) for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) when employed as either primary-reader or second-reader paradigms in a low-prevalence screening population.

Methods

Ninety screening patients underwent same-day CTC and colonoscopy. Four readers prospectively interpreted all CTC data sets using a second-reader paradigm (unassisted interpretation followed immediately by CAD assistance). Three months later, randomized anonymous data sets were re-interpreted by all readers using a primary-reader paradigm (only CAD prompts evaluated).

Results

Compared with the average per-patient sensitivity for unassisted interpretation (0.57), both CAD paradigms significantly increased sensitivity: 0.78 (p < 0.001) for the second-reader paradigm and 0.83 (p < 0.001) for the primary-reader paradigm. There was no significant difference between CAD paradigms (p = 0.25). The average per-patient specificity for polyps ≥6 mm was significantly higher using the primary-reader paradigm than the second-reader paradigm (0.90 vs. 0.83, respectively, p = 0.006), with ROC AUCs of 0.83 and 0.68, respectively. Reading time using CAD as a primary-reader paradigm (median 1.4 min) was significantly shorter than both unassisted (median 4.0 min, p < 0.001) and second-reader paradigms (median 5.5 min, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

CAD improves radiologist sensitivity in screening patients when used as either a second- or primary-reader paradigm, although the latter may improve specificity and efficiency more.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, Heiken JP, Dachman A, Kuo MD, et al. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1207–17.PubMedCrossRef Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, Heiken JP, Dachman A, Kuo MD, et al. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1207–17.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Halligan S, Altman DG, Mallett S, Taylor SA, Burling D, Roddie M, et al. Computed tomographic colonography: assessment of radiologist performance with and without computer-aided detection. Gastroenterology. 2006;131:1690–9.PubMedCrossRef Halligan S, Altman DG, Mallett S, Taylor SA, Burling D, Roddie M, et al. Computed tomographic colonography: assessment of radiologist performance with and without computer-aided detection. Gastroenterology. 2006;131:1690–9.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Taylor SA, Charman SC, Lefere P, McFarland EG, Paulson EK, Yee J, et al. CT colonography: investigation of the optimum reader paradigm by using computer-aided detection software. Radiology. 2008;246:463–71.PubMedCrossRef Taylor SA, Charman SC, Lefere P, McFarland EG, Paulson EK, Yee J, et al. CT colonography: investigation of the optimum reader paradigm by using computer-aided detection software. Radiology. 2008;246:463–71.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Mang T, Peloschek P, Plank C, Maier A, Graser A, Weber M, et al. Effect of computer-aided detection as a second reader in multidetector-row CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:2598–607.PubMedCrossRef Mang T, Peloschek P, Plank C, Maier A, Graser A, Weber M, et al. Effect of computer-aided detection as a second reader in multidetector-row CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:2598–607.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Petrick N, Haider M, Summers RM, Yeshwant SC, Brown L, Iuliano EM, et al. CT colonography with computer-aided detection as a second reader: observer performance study. Radiology. 2008;246:148–56.PubMedCrossRef Petrick N, Haider M, Summers RM, Yeshwant SC, Brown L, Iuliano EM, et al. CT colonography with computer-aided detection as a second reader: observer performance study. Radiology. 2008;246:148–56.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Taylor SA, Halligan S, Slater A, Goh V, Burling DN, Roddie ME, et al. Polyp detection with CT colonography: primary 3D endoluminal analysis versus primary 2D transverse analysis with computer-assisted reader software. Radiology. 2006;239:759–67.PubMedCrossRef Taylor SA, Halligan S, Slater A, Goh V, Burling DN, Roddie ME, et al. Polyp detection with CT colonography: primary 3D endoluminal analysis versus primary 2D transverse analysis with computer-assisted reader software. Radiology. 2006;239:759–67.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Yoshida H, Dachman AH. CAD techniques, challenges, and controversies in computed tomographic colonography. Abdom Imaging. 2005;30:26–41.PubMedCrossRef Yoshida H, Dachman AH. CAD techniques, challenges, and controversies in computed tomographic colonography. Abdom Imaging. 2005;30:26–41.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Summers RM, Yao J, Pickhardt PJ, Franaszek M, Bitter I, Brickman D, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy computer-aided polyp detection in a screening population. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:1832–44.PubMedCrossRef Summers RM, Yao J, Pickhardt PJ, Franaszek M, Bitter I, Brickman D, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy computer-aided polyp detection in a screening population. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:1832–44.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Taylor SA, Greenhalgh R, Ilangovan R, Tam E, Sahni VA, Burling D, et al. CT colonography and computer-aided detection: effect of false-positive results on reader specificity and reading efficiency in a low-prevalence screening population. Radiology. 2008;247:133–40.PubMedCrossRef Taylor SA, Greenhalgh R, Ilangovan R, Tam E, Sahni VA, Burling D, et al. CT colonography and computer-aided detection: effect of false-positive results on reader specificity and reading efficiency in a low-prevalence screening population. Radiology. 2008;247:133–40.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Yoshida H, Dachman AH. Computer-aided diagnosis for CT colonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2004;25:419–31.PubMedCrossRef Yoshida H, Dachman AH. Computer-aided diagnosis for CT colonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2004;25:419–31.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Burling D, Moore A, Marshall M, Weldon J, Gillen C, Baldwin R, et al. Virtual colonoscopy: effect of computer-assisted detection (CAD) on radiographer performance. Clin Radiol. 2008;63:549–56.PubMedCrossRef Burling D, Moore A, Marshall M, Weldon J, Gillen C, Baldwin R, et al. Virtual colonoscopy: effect of computer-assisted detection (CAD) on radiographer performance. Clin Radiol. 2008;63:549–56.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions. Esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58(6 Suppl):S3–43. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions. Esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58(6 Suppl):S3–43.
13.
go back to reference Halligan S, Taylor SA, Dehmeshki J, Amin H, Ye X, Tsang J, et al. Computer-assisted detection for CT colonography: external validation. Clin Radiol. 2006;61(9):758–63 (discussion 64–5). Halligan S, Taylor SA, Dehmeshki J, Amin H, Ye X, Tsang J, et al. Computer-assisted detection for CT colonography: external validation. Clin Radiol. 2006;61(9):758–63 (discussion 64–5).
14.
go back to reference Dehmeshki J, Halligan S, Taylor SA, Roddie ME, McQuillan J, Honeyfield L, et al. Computer assisted detection software for CT colonography: effect of sphericity filter on performance characteristics for patients with and without fecal tagging. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:662–8.PubMedCrossRef Dehmeshki J, Halligan S, Taylor SA, Roddie ME, McQuillan J, Honeyfield L, et al. Computer assisted detection software for CT colonography: effect of sphericity filter on performance characteristics for patients with and without fecal tagging. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:662–8.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Halligan S, Mallett S, Altman DG, McQuillan J, Proud M, Beddoe G, et al. Incremental benefit of computer-aided detection when used as a second and concurrent reader of CT colonographic data: multiobserver study. Radiology. 2011;258:469–76.PubMedCrossRef Halligan S, Mallett S, Altman DG, McQuillan J, Proud M, Beddoe G, et al. Incremental benefit of computer-aided detection when used as a second and concurrent reader of CT colonographic data: multiobserver study. Radiology. 2011;258:469–76.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Ransohoff DF. CON: immediate colonoscopy is not necessary in patients who have polyps smaller than 1 cm on computed tomographic colonography. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:1905–7 (discussion 7–8). Ransohoff DF. CON: immediate colonoscopy is not necessary in patients who have polyps smaller than 1 cm on computed tomographic colonography. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:1905–7 (discussion 7–8).
17.
go back to reference Robinson C, Halligan S, Taylor SA, Mallett S, Altman DG. CT colonography: a systematic review of standard of reporting for studies of computer-aided detection. Radiology. 2008;246:426–33.PubMedCrossRef Robinson C, Halligan S, Taylor SA, Mallett S, Altman DG. CT colonography: a systematic review of standard of reporting for studies of computer-aided detection. Radiology. 2008;246:426–33.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Lawrence EM, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Robbins JB. Colorectal polyps: stand-alone performance of computer-aided detection in a large asymptomatic screening population. Radiology. 2010;256:791–8.PubMedCrossRef Lawrence EM, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Robbins JB. Colorectal polyps: stand-alone performance of computer-aided detection in a large asymptomatic screening population. Radiology. 2010;256:791–8.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Taylor SA, Robinson C, Boone D, Honeyfield L, Halligan S. Polyp characteristics correctly annotated by computer-aided detection software but ignored by reporting radiologists during CT colonography. Radiology. 2009;253:715–23.PubMedCrossRef Taylor SA, Robinson C, Boone D, Honeyfield L, Halligan S. Polyp characteristics correctly annotated by computer-aided detection software but ignored by reporting radiologists during CT colonography. Radiology. 2009;253:715–23.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D, Roddie ME, Honeyfield L, McQuillan J, et al. Computer-assisted reader software versus expert reviewers for polyp detection on CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:696–702.PubMedCrossRef Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D, Roddie ME, Honeyfield L, McQuillan J, et al. Computer-assisted reader software versus expert reviewers for polyp detection on CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:696–702.PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Dachman AH, Obuchowski NA, Hoffmeister JW, Hinshaw JL, Frew MI, Winter TC, et al. Effect of computer-aided detection for CT colonography in a multireader, multicase trial. Radiology. 2010;256:827–35. Dachman AH, Obuchowski NA, Hoffmeister JW, Hinshaw JL, Frew MI, Winter TC, et al. Effect of computer-aided detection for CT colonography in a multireader, multicase trial. Radiology. 2010;256:827–35.
22.
go back to reference de Vries AH, Jensch S, Liedenbaum MH, Florie J, Nio CY, Truyen R, et al. 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. 2009;19:941–50.PubMedCrossRef de Vries AH, Jensch S, Liedenbaum MH, Florie J, Nio CY, Truyen R, et al. 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. 2009;19:941–50.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Pickhardt PJ, Lee AD, Taylor AJ, Michel SJ, Winter TC, Shadid A, et al. Primary 2D versus primary 3D polyp detection at screening CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:1451–6.PubMedCrossRef Pickhardt PJ, Lee AD, Taylor AJ, Michel SJ, Winter TC, Shadid A, et al. Primary 2D versus primary 3D polyp detection at screening CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:1451–6.PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Taylor SA, Brittenden J, Lenton J, Lambie H, Goldstone A, Wylie PN, et al. Influence of computer-aided detection false-positives on reader performance and diagnostic confidence for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1682–9.PubMedCrossRef Taylor SA, Brittenden J, Lenton J, Lambie H, Goldstone A, Wylie PN, et al. Influence of computer-aided detection false-positives on reader performance and diagnostic confidence for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1682–9.PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Morimoto T, Iinuma G, Shiraishi J, Arai Y, Moriyama N, Beddoe G, et al. Computer-aided detection in computed tomography colonography: current status and problems with detection of early colorectal cancer. Radiat Med. 2008;26:261–9.PubMedCrossRef Morimoto T, Iinuma G, Shiraishi J, Arai Y, Moriyama N, Beddoe G, et al. Computer-aided detection in computed tomography colonography: current status and problems with detection of early colorectal cancer. Radiat Med. 2008;26:261–9.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparative performance of a primary-reader and second-reader paradigm of computer-aided detection for CT colonography in a low-prevalence screening population
Authors
Mototaka Miyake
Gen Iinuma
Stuart A. Taylor
Steve Halligan
Tsuyoshi Morimoto
Tamaki Ichikawa
Hideto Tomimatsu
Gareth Beddoe
Kazuro Sugimura
Yasuaki Arai
Publication date
01-05-2013
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
Japanese Journal of Radiology / Issue 5/2013
Print ISSN: 1867-1071
Electronic ISSN: 1867-108X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-013-0187-7

Other articles of this Issue 5/2013

Japanese Journal of Radiology 5/2013 Go to the issue