Influence of computer-aided detection false-positives on reader performance and diagnostic confidence for CT colonography.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to investigate whether an increasing number of computer-aided detection (CAD) false-positives decreases reader sensitivity, specificity, and confidence for nonexpert readers of CT colonography (CTC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty CTC data sets (29 men; mean age, 65 years), 25 of which contained 35 polyps > or = 5 mm, were selected in which CAD had 100% polyp sensitivity at two sphericity settings (0 and 75) but differed in the number of false-positives. The data sets were read by five readers twice: once at each sphericity setting. Sensitivity, specificity, report time, and confidence before and after second-read CAD were compared using the paired exact and Student's t test, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated using reader confidence (1-100) in correct case classification (normal or abnormal). RESULTS: CAD generated a mean of 42 (range, 3-118) and 15 (range, 1-36) false-positives at a sphericity of 0 and 75, respectively. CAD at both settings increased per-patient sensitivity from 82% to 87% (p = 0.03) and per-polyp sensitivity by 8% and 10% for a sphericity of 0 and 75, respectively (p < 0.001). Specificity decreased from 84% to 79% (sphericity 0 and 75, p = 0.03 and 0.07). There was no difference in sensitivity, specificity, or reader confidence between sphericity settings (p = 1.0, 1.0, 0.11, respectively). The area under the ROC curve was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.70-0.86) and 0.77 (0.68-0.85) for a sphericity of 0 and 75, respectively. CAD added a median of 4.4 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 2.7-6.5 minutes) and 2.2 minutes (IQR, 1.2-4.0 minutes) for a sphericity of 0 and 75, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION. CAD has the potential to increase the sensitivity of readers inexperienced with CTC, although specificity may be reduced. An increased number of CAD-generated false-positives does not negate any beneficial effect but does reduce efficiency.

CT colonography: effect of colonic distension on polyp measurement accuracy and agreement-in vitro study.

RATIONAL AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of colonic distension on polyp measurement accuracy and reader agreement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board permission was obtained. A sealed colectomy specimen from a patient with familial adenomatous polyposis was scanned using a four-detector-row computed tomography (CT) after half and full air distension. A histopathologist measured the maximum dimension of all polyps in the opened specimen. Digital photographs and line drawings were used to individually match polyps visible in the CT datasets. Two observers (radiologist, technician) independently estimated the maximum polyp diameter using both two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) surface rendering. Full-distension measurements were repeated 1 week later. Accuracy was analyzed using paired t-test. Observer agreement was assessed using Bland Altman limits of agreement. RESULTS: Twenty-three polyps (4-15 mm) were identified. 2D measurements were significantly smaller than histologic size at both half distension (radiologist first): mean difference [md] -1.1 mm, md -1.7 mm, and full distension md -1.1 mm, md 1.4 mm (all P < .001). 3D measurements were not significantly different from true size other than after half distension for the technician (md -0.7 mm, P = .01). 95% Bland Altman limits for interobserver agreement were narrower after full distension, and better using 2D (half-distension span of agreement approximately 4.7 mm and 6 mm for 2D and 3D, respectively). 2D intraobserver span of agreement between half and full distension was approximately 3.8 mm and 3.2 mm for the radiologist and technician, respectively, compared with 6.2 mm and 5.5 mm using 3D. CONCLUSION: 3D polyp measurement is more accurate than 2D. However, in the presence of suboptimal distension, inter- and intraobserver agreement is superior using 2D.

Polyp detection with CT colonography: primary 3D endoluminal analysis versus primary 2D transverse analysis with computer-assisted reader software.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare primary three-dimensional (3D) endoluminal analysis with primary two-dimensional (2D) transverse analysis supplemented by computer-assisted reader (CAR) software for computed tomographic (CT) polyp detection and reader reporting times. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ethical permission and patient consent were obtained from all donor institutions for use of CT colonography data sets. Twenty CT colonography data sets from 14 men (median age, 61 years; age range, 52-78 years) with 48 endoscopically proved polyps were selected. Polyp coordinates were documented in consensus by three unblinded radiologists to create a reference standard. Two radiologists read the data sets, which were randomized between primary 3D endoluminal views with 2D problem solving and 2D views supplemented by CAR software. Reading times and diagnostic confidence were documented. The CAR software highlighted possible polyps by superimposing circles on the 2D transverse images. Data sets were reread after 1 month by using the opposing analysis method. Detection rates were compared by using the McNemar test. Reporting times and diagnostic confidence were compared by using the paired t test and Mann-Whitney U test, respectively. RESULTS: Mean sensitivity values for polyps measuring 1-5, 6-9, and 10 mm or larger were 14%, 53%, and 83%, respectively, for 2D CAR analysis and 16%, 53%, and 67%, respectively, for primary 3D analysis. Overall sensitivity values were 41% for 2D CAR analysis and 39% for primary 3D analysis (P=.77). Reader 1 detected more polyps than reader 2, particularly when using the 3D fly-through method (P=.002). Mean reading times were significantly longer with the 3D method (P=.001). Mean false-positive findings were 1.5 for 2D analysis and 5.5 for 3D analysis. Reader confidence was not significantly different between analysis methods (P=.42). CONCLUSION: Two-dimensional CAR analysis is quicker and at least matches the sensitivity of primary 3D endoluminal analysis, with fewer false-positive findings.