Evaluation of a method of computer-aided detection (CAD) of pulmonary nodules with computed tomography.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The authors sought to compare the sensitivity and reading time obtained using computer-aided detection (CAD) software as second reader (SR) or concurrent reader (CR) in the identification of pulmonary nodules. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Unenhanced CT scans of 100 consecutive cancer patients were retrospectively reviewed by four readers to identify all solid, noncalcified pulmonary nodules ranging from 3 to 30 mm in diameter. The sensitivity and reading time of each reader and of CAD alone were calculated at 3-mm and 5-mm thresholds with respect to the reference standard, consisting of a consensus reading by the four radiologists involved in the study. The McNemar test was used to compare the sensitivities obtained by reading without CAD (readers 1 and 2), with CAD as SR (readers 1 and 2 with a 2-month delay), and with CAD as CR (readers 3 and 4). The paired Student's t test was used to compare reading times. A value of p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 258 and 224 nodules were identified at 3-mm and 5-mm thresholds, respectively. The sensitivity of CAD alone was 62.79% and 67.41% at the 3-mm and 5-mm threshold values respectively, with 4.15 and 2.96 false-positive findings per examination. CAD as SR produced a significant increase in sensitivity (p<0.001) in nodule detection with respect to reading without CAD both at 3 mm (12.01%) and 5 mm (10.04%); the average increase in sensitivity obtained when comparing CAD as SR to CAD as CR was statistically significant (p<0.025) both at the 3-mm (5.35%) and 5-mm (4.68%) thresholds. CAD as CR produced a nonsignificant increase in sensitivity compared with reading without CAD (p>0.05). Mean reading time using CAD as SR (330 s) was significantly longer than reading without CAD (135 s, p<0.001) and reading with CAD as CR (195 s, p<0.025). CONCLUSIONS: The use of CAD as CR, without any significant increase in reading time, produces no significant increase in sensitivity in pulmonary nodule detection when compared with reading without CAD (p>0.05); CAD as SR, at the cost of longer reading times, increases sensitivity when compared with reading without CAD (p<0.001) or with CAD as CR (p<0.025).