Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Clin Radiol ; 64(10): 972-82, 2009 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19748002

RESUMEN

AIM: To evaluate whether computer-aided detection (CAD) as a second reader using perspective filet view [three-dimensional (3D) filet] improves the performance of inexperienced readers at computed tomography colonography (CTC) compared with unassisted 3D filet and unassisted two-dimensional (2D) CTC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty symptomatic patients underwent CTC and same-day colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. Two inexperienced readers read the CTC studies on 3D filet and 2D several weeks apart. Four months later, readers re-read the cases only evaluating CAD marks using 3D filet. Suspicious CAD marks not previously described on 3D filet were recorded. Jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC-1) analysis was used to compare the observers' performances in detecting lesions with 3D filet, 2D and 3D filet with CAD. RESULTS: One hundred and three lesions > or =3mm were detected at colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. CAD alone had a sensitivity of 73% (75/103) at a mean false-positive rate per patient of 12.8 in supine and 11.4 in prone. For inexperienced readers sensitivities with 3D filet with CAD were 58% (60/103) and 48% (50/103) with an improvement of 14-16 percentage points (p<0.05) compared with 2D and of 10-11 percentage points (p<0.05) compared with 3D filet. For inexperienced readers, the false-positive rate was 25-41% and 71-200% higher with 3D filet with CAD compared with 3D filet and 2D, respectively. JAFROC-1 analysis showed no significant differences in per-lesion overall performance among reading modes (p=0.8). CONCLUSION: CAD applied as a second reader using 3D filet increased both sensitivity and the number of false positives by inexperienced readers compared with 3D filet and 2D, thus not improving overall performance, i.e., the ability to distinguish between lesions and non-lesions.


Asunto(s)
Colon/diagnóstico por imagen , Colonografía Tomográfica Computarizada , Colonoscopía/métodos , Interpretación de Imagen Radiográfica Asistida por Computador/métodos , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Competencia Clínica , Colonografía Tomográfica Computarizada/métodos , Colonografía Tomográfica Computarizada/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Humanos , Imagenología Tridimensional/métodos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Variaciones Dependientes del Observador , Estudios Prospectivos , Curva ROC , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Programas Informáticos
2.
Acta Radiol ; 50(3): 244-55, 2009 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19235581

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: "Perspective-filet view" is a novel three-dimensional (3D) viewing technique for computed tomography colonography (CTC). Studies with experienced readers have shown a sensitivity for perspective-filet view similar to that of 2D or 3D endoluminal fly-through in detection of colorectal lesions. It is not known whether perspective-filet view, compared to axial images, improves lesion detection by inexperienced readers. PURPOSE: To compare primary 3D analysis using perspective-filet view (3D Filet) with primary 2D analysis, as used by inexperienced CTC readers. Secondary aims were to compare lesion detection by 3D Filet when used by experienced and inexperienced readers, and to evaluate the effect of combined 3D Filet + 2D analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty symptomatic patients were prospectively enrolled. An experienced reader performed 3D Filet analysis followed by complete 2D analysis (3D Filet + 2D), before colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. Two inexperienced readers (readers 2 and 3), blinded to CTC and colonoscopy findings, retrospectively performed 3D Filet analysis and, after 5 weeks, 2D analysis. True positives >or=6 mm detected by the inexperienced readers with 3D Filet and/or 2D were combined to obtain 3D Filet + 2D. RESULTS: Colonoscopy revealed 116 lesions: 16 lesions >or=10 mm, 19 lesions 6-9 mm, and 81 lesions or=6 mm with 3D Filet and 3D Filet + 2D were 77% and 83%, respectively. For the inexperienced readers, sensitivities for lesions >or=6 mm with 3D Filet and 2D were 51% and 57% (reader 2) and 40% and 43% (reader 3), respectively. There was no significant difference between 3D Filet and 2D regarding sensitivity and reading time. For lesions >or=6 mm, 3D Filet + 2D improved the sensitivity of reader 2 to 63% and of reader 3 to 51%. CONCLUSION: Lesion detection by inexperienced readers using perspective-filet view is comparable to that obtained by 2D. Lesion detection improves by combining 3D Filet + 2D, but not to the level of an experienced reader.


Asunto(s)
Adenocarcinoma/diagnóstico por imagen , Adenoma/diagnóstico por imagen , Adenoma/epidemiología , Competencia Clínica , Pólipos del Colon/diagnóstico por imagen , Pólipos del Colon/epidemiología , Colonografía Tomográfica Computarizada/métodos , Colonografía Tomográfica Computarizada/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Colorrectales/epidemiología , Procesamiento de Imagen Asistido por Computador/métodos , Procesamiento de Imagen Asistido por Computador/estadística & datos numéricos , Imagenología Tridimensional/métodos , Imagenología Tridimensional/estadística & datos numéricos , Radiología/educación , Adenocarcinoma/epidemiología , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Colonoscopía , Medios de Contraste/administración & dosificación , Educación Médica Continua , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Variaciones Dependientes del Observador , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Programas Informáticos , Estudios de Tiempo y Movimiento , Ácidos Triyodobenzoicos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA