Efficacy of computer-aided detection as a second reader for 6-9-mm lesions at CT colonography: multicenter prospective trial.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of computer-aided detection (CAD) as a second reader on the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomographic (CT) colonography in detecting 6-9-mm colorectal cancer (CRC) lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individuals with clinical indications for colonoscopy--either for symptoms or as part of participating in a surveillance program or CRC screening--were prospectively enrolled at one of 10 academic centers between July 2007 and May 2009. Institutional review board approval was obtained at each clinical site, and all participants provided written informed consent. All participants underwent CT colonography and colonoscopy on the same day. Experienced readers interpreted the CT colonography images unassisted and then reviewed all colorectal lesion-like structures pinpointed by the CAD algorithm. Segmental unblinding of CT colonoscopy findings at colonoscopy was utilized. The sensitivity and specificity of unassisted and CAD-assisted reading in identifying individuals with 6-9-mm lesions were calculated and compared by means of pairwise analysis. RESULTS: A total of 618 participants (mean age, 57.9 years; 54.5% male) were included in the final analysis. Of these participants, 464 (75.1%) had no lesions 6 mm or larger, and 52 (8.4%) had 6-9-mm lesions. The sensitivity of CT colonography with unassisted reading and that with CAD-assisted reading in identifying individuals with 6-9-mm lesions was 65.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 50.9%, 78.0%) and 76.9% (95% CI: 63.2%, 87.5%; P = .016), respectively. No significant change in specificity was observed: The specificity of CT colonography with unassisted and that with CAD-assisted reading was 91.8% (95% CI: 88.9%, 94.1%) and 90.9% (95% CI: 88.0%, 93.4%; P = .063), respectively. Evaluation of CAD candidates required an additional 1.6 minutes (25th-75th percentile: 1.0 minute to 3.4 minutes). CONCLUSION: The addition of CAD to reading performed by experienced readers resulted in a significant benefit in the detection of 6-9-mm polyps at CT colonography in this cohort. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12120376/-/DC1.

Evaluation of the Added Value of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging to Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors and Comparison With 68Ga-DOTANOC Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to investigate the added value of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (pNET) evaluation and to compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to Ga-DOTANOC positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) results. METHODS: Morphological MRI (T2-weighted [T2-w] + contrast-enhanced [CE] T1-w) and DWI (T2-w + DWI) and Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT in 25 patients/30 pNETs were retrospectively evaluated. Per-patient and per-lesion detection rates (pDR and lDR, respectively) were calculated. Apparent diffusion coefficient values were compared among pNET and surrounding and normal pancreas (control group, 18 patients). Apparent diffusion coefficient and standardized uptake value (SUV) values were compared among different grading and staging groups. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in PET/CT and MRI session detection rates were found (morphological MRI and DW-MRI, 88% pDR and 87% lDR; combined evaluation, 92% pDR and 90% lDR; Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT, 88% pDR and 80% lDR). Consensus reading (morphological/DW-MRI + PET/CT) improved pDR and lDR (100%). Apparent diffusion coefficient mean value was significantly lower compared with surrounding and normal parenchyma (P < 0.01). The apparent diffusion coefficient and SUV values of pNETs among different grading and staging groups were not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional MRI, DW-MRI + T2-w sequences, and Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT can be alternative tools in pNET detection. Diffusion-weighted MRI could be valuable in patients with clinical suspicion but negative conventional imaging findings. However, the consensus reading of the 3 techniques seems the best approach.