Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online before print February 21, 2008, 10.1148/radiol.2471070816
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Table and Figures
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2471070816v1
247/1/133    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Taylor, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Halligan, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Taylor, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Halligan, S.
(Radiology 2008;247:133-140.)
© RSNA, 2008

Gastrointestinal Imaging

CT Colonography and Computer-aided Detection: Effect of False-Positive Results on Reader Specificity and Reading Efficiency in a Low-Prevalence Screening Population1

Stuart A. Taylor, MD, MRCP, FRCR, Rebecca Greenhalgh, FRCR, Rajapandian Ilangovan, MD, FRCR, Emily Tam, FRCR, Vikram A. Sahni, FRCR, David Burling, MD, MRCP, FRCR, Jie Zhang, MD, Paul Bassett, BSc, Perry J. Pickhardt, MD, and Steve Halligan, MD, FRCP, FRCR

1 From the Department of Specialist X-Ray, University College Hospital, 2F Podium, 235 Euston Rd, London NW1 2BU, England (S.A.T., R.G., S.H.); Department of Intestinal Imaging, St Mark's Hospital, Harrow, England (R.I., E.T., V.A.S., D.B., P.B.); Department of Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China (J.Z.); and Abdominal Imaging Section, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wis (P.J.P.). Received May 9, 2007; revision requested July 13; revision received August 17; accepted September 19; final version accepted October 12. Supported in part by the Department of Health's NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme. Address correspondence to S.A.T. (e-mail: csytaylor{at}yahoo.co.uk).

Purpose: To retrospectively evaluate the effect of increasing numbers of computer-aided detection (CAD)-generated false-positive (FP) marks on reader specificity and reporting times by using computed tomographic (CT) colonography in a low-prevalence screening population.

Materials and Methods: Ethics committee approval and informed consent were obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study. Four readers each read 48 data sets (26 men, 22 women; mean age, 57 years) from a screening population (three containing polyps) without CAD application, followed by review of the CAD output and recorded findings and diagnostic confidence. The 45 data sets that were designated as normal were chosen such that 22 generated 15 or fewer FP CAD marks and 23 generated more than 15 FP CAD marks. Sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated with and without CAD. The relationships between the number of CAD FP marks and reader confidence, reporting times, and correct data set classification were analyzed by using linear and logistic regression.

Results: Across all readers, CAD resulted in four additional FP detections. Overall reader sensitivity and specificity (6-mm polyp threshold) before and after CAD application were 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43, 0.95) versus 0.83 (95% CI: 0.52, 0.98) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.98) versus 0.93 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.96), respectively. The area under the ROC curve increased from 0.57 (95% CI: 0.34, 0.80) to 0.61 (95% CI: 0.42, 0.80). There was no correlation between an increasing number of CAD FP marks and reader confidence (P = .71) or correct study classification (P = .23), but there was a positive correlation with CAD-assisted reading times (0.06 [95% CI: 0.02, 0.10], P = .002).

Conclusion: Increasing numbers of CAD FP marks did not adversely influence correct reader study classification or diagnostic confidence, although reporting times did increase.

© RSNA, 2008

Supplemental material: http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/2471070816/DC1




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
S. A. Taylor, J. Brittenden, J. Lenton, H. Lambie, A. Goldstone, P. N. Wylie, D. Tolan, D. Burling, L. Honeyfield, P. Bassett, et al.
Influence of Computer-Aided Detection False-Positives on Reader Performance and Diagnostic Confidence for CT Colonography
Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2009; 192(6): 1682 - 1689.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNMHome page
M. Sadik, M. Suurkula, P. Hoglund, A. Jarund, and L. Edenbrandt
Improved Classifications of Planar Whole-Body Bone Scans Using a Computer-Assisted Diagnosis System: A Multicenter, Multiple-Reader, Multiple-Case Study
J. Nucl. Med., March 1, 2009; 50(3): 368 - 375.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
D. Regge, C. Hassan, P. J. Pickhardt, A. Laghi, A. Zullo, D. H. Kim, F. Iafrate, and S. Morini
Impact of Computer-aided Detection on the Cost-effectiveness of CT Colonography
Radiology, February 1, 2009; 250(2): 488 - 497.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]