Nonradiologists as second readers for intraluminal findings at CT colonography

Accuracy of CT Colonography for Detection of Polypoid and Nonpolypoid Neoplasia by Gastroenterologists and Radiologists: A Nationwide Multicenter Study in Japan

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to assess prospectively the diagnostic accuracy of computer-assisted computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in the detection of polypoid (pedunculated or sessile) and nonpolypoid neoplasms and compare the accuracy between gastroenterologists and radiologists.

METHODS

This nationwide multicenter prospective controlled trial recruited 1,257 participants with average or high risk of colorectal cancer at 14 Japanese institutions. Participants had CTC and colonoscopy on the same day. CTC images were interpreted independently by trained gastroenterologists and radiologists. The main outcome was the accuracy of CTC in the detection of neoplasms ≥6 mm in diameter, with colonoscopy results as the reference standard. Detection sensitivities of polypoid vs. nonpolypoid lesions were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 1,257 participants, 1,177 were included in the final analysis: 42 (3.6%) were at average risk of colorectal cancer, 456 (38.7%) were at elevated risk, and 679 (57.7%) had recent positive immunochemical fecal occult blood tests. The overall per-participant sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for neoplasms ≥6 mm in diameter were 0.90, 0.93, 0.83, and 0.96, respectively, among gastroenterologists and 0.86, 0.90, 0.76, and 0.95 among radiologists (P<0.05 for gastroenterologists vs. radiologists). The sensitivity and specificity for neoplasms ≥10 mm in diameter were 0.93 and 0.99 among gastroenterologists and 0.91 and 0.98 among radiologists (not significant for gastroenterologists vs. radiologists). The CTC interpretation time by radiologists was shorter than that by gastroenterologists (9.97 vs. 15.8 min, P<0.05). Sensitivities for pedunculated and sessile lesions exceeded those for flat elevated lesions ≥10 mm in diameter in both groups (gastroenterologists 0.95, 0.92, and 0.68; radiologists: 0.94, 0.87, and 0.61; P<0.05 for polypoid vs. nonpolypoid), although not significant (P>0.05) for gastroenterologists vs. radiologists.

CONCLUSIONS

CTC interpretation by gastroenterologists and radiologists was accurate for detection of polypoid neoplasms, but less so for nonpolypoid neoplasms. Gastroenterologists had a higher accuracy in the detection of neoplasms ≥6 mm than did radiologists, although their interpretation time was longer than that of radiologists.

Does training and experience influence the accuracy of computed tomography colonography interpretation?

AIM: To evaluate the effect of experience on the accuracy rate of computed tomography colonography (CTC) interpretation and patient preferences/satisfaction for CTC and colonoscopy.

METHODS: A prospective, non-randomized, observational study performed in a single, tertiary care center involving 90 adults who underwent CTC followed by colonoscopy on the same day. CTC was interpreted by an abdominal imaging radiologist and then a colonoscopy was performed utilizing segmental un-blinding and re-examination as required. A radiology resident and two gastroenterology (GI) fellows blinded to the results also interpreted the CTC datasets independently. Accuracy rates and trend changes were determined for each reader to assess for a learning curve.

RESULTS: Among 90 patients (57% male) aged 55 ± 8.9 years, 39 polyps ≥ 6 mm were detected in 20 patients and 13 polyps > 9 mm in 10 patients. Accuracy rates were 88.9% (≥ 6 mm) and 93.3% (> 9 mm) for the GI Radiologist, 89.8% (≥ 6 mm) and 98.9% (> 9 mm) for the Radiology Resident and 86.7% and 95.6% (≥ 6 mm) and 87.8% and 94.4% (> 9 mm) for each of the GI fellows respectively. The reader’s accuracy rate did not change significantly with the percentage change rate ranging between -1.7 to 0.9 (P = 0.12 to 0.56). Patients considered colonoscopy more satisfactory than CTC (30% vs 4%, P < 0.0001), they felt less anxiety during colonoscopy (36% vs 7%, P < 0.0001), they experienced less pain or discomfort during colonoscopy compared to CTC (69% vs 4%, P < 0.0001) and colonoscopy was preferred by 77% of the participants as a repeat screening test for the future.

CONCLUSION: No statistically significant learning curve was identified in CTC interpretation suggesting that further study is required to identify the necessary training to adequately interpret CTC scans.

Comparison of the diagnostic performance of CT colonography interpreted by radiologists and radiographers

Objective

To compare computed tomographic colonography (CTC) performance of four trained radiographers with the CTC performance of two experienced radiologists.

Methods

Four radiographers and two radiologists interpreted 87 cases with 40 polyps ≥6 mm. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were assessed on a per-patient basis. On a per-polyp basis, sensitivity was calculated according to the respective size categories (polyps ≥6 mm as well as polyps ≥10 mm).

Results

Overall per-patient sensitivity for polyps ≥6 mm was 76.2 % (95 % CI 61.4–91.0) and 76.2 % (95 % CI 61.7–90.6), for the radiographers and radiologists, respectively. Overall per-patient specificity for polyps ≥6 mm were 81.4 % (95 % CI 73.7–89.2) and 81.1 % (95 % CI 73.8–88.3) for the radiographers and the radiologists, respectively. For the radiographers, overall per-polyp sensitivity was 60.3 % (95 % CI 50.3–70.3) and 60.7 % (95 % CI 42.2–79.2) for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm, respectively. For the radiologists, overall per polyp sensitivity was 59.2 % (95 % CI 46.4–72.0) and 69.0 % (95 % CI 48.1–89.6) for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm, respectively.

Conclusion

Radiographers with training in CT colonographic evaluation achieved sensitivity and specificity in polyp detection comparable with that of experienced radiologists.

Main messages

• The diagnostic accuracy of trained radiographers was comparable to that of experienced radiologists.

• The use of radiographers in reading CTC examinations is acceptable, however radiologists would still be necessary for the evaluation of extracolonic findings.

• Skilled non-radiologists may play a vital role as a second reader of intraluminal findings or by performing quality control of examinations before patient dismissal.

Comparing the diagnostic yields of technologists and radiologists in an invitational colorectal cancer screening program performed with CT colonography

PURPOSE

To compare the diagnostic yields of a radiologist and trained technologists in the detection of advanced neoplasia within a population-based computed tomographic (CT) colonography screening program.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ethical approval was obtained from the Dutch Health Council, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Nine hundred eighty-two participants (507 men, 475 women) underwent low-dose CT colonography after noncathartic bowel preparation (iodine tagging) between July 13, 2009, and January 21, 2011. Each scan was evaluated by one of three experienced radiologists (≥800 examinations) by using primary two-dimensional (2D) reading followed by secondary computer-aided detection (CAD) and by two of four trained technologists (≥200 examinations, with colonoscopic verification) by using primary 2D reading followed by three-dimensional analysis and CAD. Immediate colonoscopy was recommended for participants with lesions measuring at least 10 mm, and surveillance was recommended for participants with lesions measuring 6-9 mm. Consensus between technologists was achieved in case of discordant recommendations. Detection of advanced neoplasia (classified by a pathologist) was defined as a true-positive (TP) finding. Relative TP and false-positive (FP) fractions were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Overall, 96 of the 982 participants were referred for colonoscopy and 104 were scheduled for surveillance. Sixty of 84 participants (71%) referred for colonoscopy by the radiologist had advanced neoplasia, compared with 55 of 64 participants (86%) referred by two technologists. Both the radiologist and technologists detected all colorectal cancers (n = 5). The relative TP fraction (for technologists vs radiologist) for advanced neoplasia was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.78, 1.07), and the relative FP fraction was 0.38 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.67).

CONCLUSION

Two technologists serving as a primary reader of CT colonographic images can achieve a comparable sensitivity to that of a radiologist for the detection of advanced neoplasia, with far fewer FP referrals for colonoscopy.

Physician knowledge and appropriate utilization of computed tomographic colonography in colorectal cancer screening

GOALS

To assess physician understanding of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines in a pilot study.

BACKGROUND

CTC is a sensitive and specific method of detecting colorectal polyps and cancer. However, several factors have limited its clinical availability, and CRC screening guidelines have issued conflicting recommendations.

STUDY

A web-based survey was administered to physicians at two institutions with and without routine CTC availability.

RESULTS

398 of 1655 (24%) participants completed the survey, 59% was from the institution with routine CTC availability, 52% self-identified as trainees, and 15% as gastroenterologists. 78% had no personal experience with CTC. Only 12% was aware of any current CRC screening guidelines that included CTC. In a multiple regression model, gastroenterologists had greater odds of being aware of guidelines (OR 3.49, CI 1.67-7.26), as did physicians with prior CTC experience (OR 4.81, CI 2.39-9.68), controlling for institution, level of training, sex, and practice type. Based on guidelines that recommend CTC, when given a clinical scenario, 96% of physicians was unable to select the appropriate follow-up after a CTC, which was unaffected by institution.

CONCLUSIONS

Most physicians have limited experience with CTC and are unaware of recent recommendations concerning CTC in CRC screening.

Evaluation of a standardized CT colonography training program for novice readers

PURPOSE

To determine how many computed tomographic (CT) colonography training studies have to be evaluated by novice readers to obtain an adequate level of competence in polyp detection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Six physicians (one radiologist, three radiology residents, two researchers) and three technicians completed a CT colonography training program. Two hundred CT colonographic examinations with colonoscopic verification were selected from a research database, with 100 CT colonographic examinations with at least one polyp 6 mm or larger. After a lecture session and short individual hands-on training, CT colonography training was done individually with immediate feedback of colonoscopy outcome. Per-polyp sensitivity was calculated for four sets of 50 CT colonographic examinations for lesions 6 mm or larger. By using logistic regression analyses, the number of CT colonographic examinations to reach 90% sensitivity for lesions 6 mm or larger was estimated. Reading times were registered.

RESULTS

The average per-polyp sensitivity for lesions 6 mm or larger was 76% (207 of 270) in the first set of 50 CT colonographic examinations, 77% (262 of 342) in the second (P = .96 vs first set), 80% (310 of 387) in the third (P = .67 vs first set), and 91% (261 of 288) in the fourth (P = .018). The estimated number of CT colonographic examinations for a sufficient sensitivity was 164. Six of nine readers reached this level of competence within 175 CT colonographic examinations. Reading times decreased significantly from the first to the second set of 50 CT colonographic examinations for six readers.

CONCLUSION

Novice CT colonography readers obtained sensitivity equal to that of experienced readers after practicing on average 164 CT colonographic studies.

Computed tomographic colonography: ready for prime time?

Computed tomographic (CT) colonography is a noninvasive method to evaluate the colon and has received considerable attention in the last decade as a colon-imaging tool. The technique has also been proposed as a potential primary colon cancer-screening method in the United States. The accuracy of the technique for the detection of large lesions seems to be high, perhaps in the range of colonoscopy. Overall, the field is rapidly evolving. Available data suggest that CT colonography, although a viable colon cancer screening modality in the United States, is not ready for widespread implementation, largely because of the lack of standards for training and reading and the limited number of skilled readers.

Can radiologist training and testing ensure high performance in CT colonography? Lessons From the National CT Colonography Trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to describe the experience of the National CT Colonography Trial with radiologist training and qualification testing at CT colonography (CTC) and to correlate this experience with subsequent performance in a prospective screening study.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Ten inexperienced radiologists participated in a 1-day educational course, during which partial CTC examinations of 27 cases with neoplasia and full CTC examinations of 15 cases were reviewed using primary 2D and 3D search. Subsequently 15 radiologists took a qualification examination composed of 20 CTC cases. Radiologists who did not pass the first qualification examination attended a second day of focused retraining of 30 cases, which was followed by a second qualification examination. The results of the initial and subsequent qualification tests were compared with reader performance in a large prospective screening trial.

RESULTS

All radiologists took and passed the qualification examinations. Seven radiologists passed the qualification examination the first time it was offered, and eight radiologists passed after focused retraining. Significantly better sensitivities were obtained on the second versus the first examination for the retrained radiologists (difference = 16%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in sensitivities between the groups who passed the qualification examination the first time versus those who passed the second time in the prospective study (88% vs 92%, respectively; p = 0.612). In the prospective study, the odds of correctly identifying diseased cases increased by 1.5 fold for every 50-case increase in reader experience or formal training (p < 0.025).

CONCLUSION

A significant difference in performance was observed among radiologists before formalized training, but testing and focused retraining improved radiologist performance, resulting in an overall high sensitivity across radiologists in a subsequent, prospective screening study.

The Benefits of Computed Tomographic Colonography in Reducing a Long Colonoscopy Waiting List

Purpose

The Radiology Department, Royal Jubilee Hospital, Victoria, BC, with the support of gastroenterologists and surgeons, was awarded a BC Innovation fund to run a pilot project of computed tomographic colonography to reduce an unacceptably long 2-year colonoscopy waiting list. Funds were approved in April 2007 for a 1-year project, which was completed on March 31, 2008.

Methods

This article describes the challenges of delivering a high-volume computed tomographic colonography program at a busy community hospital, with discussion of the results for the 2,005 patients who were examined.

Results

Colonoscopy was avoided in 1,462 patients whose computed tomographic studies showed no significant lesions. In the remainder of patients, only lesions larger than 5 mm were reported, with a total of 508 lesions identified in 433 patients. There were 57 cancers of which 52 were reported as either definite or possible cancers, whereas 5 were not seen on initial scans. Some of the patients with cancer had been on the colonoscopy waiting list for 2 years. In addition, there were 461 patients with significant extracolonic findings, including 84 who required urgent or semi-urgent further management for previously unsuspected conditions, such as pneumonia, aneurysms larger than 5 cm, and a range of solid renal, hepatic, and pancreatic masses. There were no procedural complications from the computed tomographic colon studies.

Conclusions

We have shown that it is feasible to run a high volume CTC service in a general hospital given hospital support and funding. The benefits in this group of over 2000 patients included avoidance of colonoscopy in over 70% of patients, detection of significant polyps or cancer in approximately 20% of patients, and identification of clinically important conditions in 7%–18% depending on the definition used. The estimated costs including capital, operating, and professional fees were in the range of $400.

ACR Colon Cancer Committee white paper: status of CT colonography 2009

PURPOSE

To review the current status and rationale of the updated ACR practice guidelines for CT colonography (CTC).

METHODS

Clinical validation trials in both the United States and Europe are reviewed. Key technical aspects of the CTC examination are emphasized, including low-dose protocols, proper insufflation, and bowel preparation. Important issues of implementation are discussed, including training and certification, definition of the target lesion, reporting of colonic and extracolonic findings, quality metrics, reimbursement, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Successful validation trials in screening cohorts both in the United States with ACRIN and in Germany demonstrated sensitivity > or = 90% for patients with polyps >10 mm. Proper technique is critical, including low-dose techniques in screening cohorts, with an upper limit of the CT dose index by volume of 12.5 mGy per examination. Training new readers includes the requirement of interactive workstation training with 2-D and 3-D image display techniques. The target lesion is defined as a polyp > or = 6 mm, consistent with the American Cancer Society joint guidelines. Five quality metrics have been defined for CTC, with pilot data entered. Although the CMS national noncoverage decision in May 2009 was a disappointment, multiple third-party payers are reimbursing for screening CTC. Cost-effective modeling has shown CTC to be a dominant strategy, including in a Medicare cohort.

CONCLUSION

Supported by third-party payer reimbursement for screening, CTC will continue to further transition into community practice and can provide an important adjunctive examination for colorectal screening.

Computed tomographic colonography: current perspectives and future directions

Computed tomographic (CT) colonography, also known as virtual colonoscopy or CT colography, is capable of detecting colon polyps and cancers. It is emerging rapidly and has gained great momentum over the past several years, to the point where it has been proposed to be a viable primary colon cancer screening option. Despite the current publicity, many issues concerning CT colonography remain. As of 2009, the following topics are of paramount importance: (1) accuracy, including both sensitivity and specificity, (2) bowel preparation, (3) safety, (4) extracolonic findings, (5) patient acceptability, (6) training and standardization, and (7) implementation of CT colonography. Although much about CT colonography has already been learned, more remains to be learned in the future.

Computed tomographic colonography

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Computed tomographic colonography is a new and noninvasive method to evaluate the colon. The goal of this review is to discuss the latest data and define outstanding issues related to computed tomographic colonography.

RECENT FINDINGS

Computed tomographic colonography is gaining momentum as a potential primary colon cancer screening method in the USA. Although not as accurate as colonoscopy, the accuracy of computed tomographic colonography for detection of large lesions appears to be in the 80-90% range. The field is rapidly evolving, not only in terms of technology but also in a variety of other practical areas.

SUMMARY

Current data suggest that computed tomographic colonography is a viable colon cancer screening modality in the USA. However, it is not ready for widespread implementation, largely because of lack of standards for training and reading and the fact that the number of skilled readers is limited.

Formative evaluation of standardized training for CT colonographic image interpretation by novice readers

PURPOSE

To introduce an educational intervention-specifically, a specialized training course-and perform a formative evaluation of the effect of the intervention on novice reader interpretation of computed tomography (CT) colonographic data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was institutional review board approved. Ten normal and 50 abnormal cases, those of 60 patients with 93 polyps-61 polyps 6-9 mm in diameter and 32 polyps 10 mm or larger-were selected from a previously published trial. Seven novice readers underwent initial training that consisted of a 1-day course, reading assignments, a self-study computer module (with 61 limited data sets), observation of an expert interpreting three cases, and full interpretation of 10 cases with unblinding after each case. After training, the observers independently interpreted 60 cases by means of primary two-dimensional reading with unblinding after each case. For each case, the reading time and the location and maximal diameter of the polyp(s) were recorded. A t test was used to evaluate the observers' improvements, and empirical receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed.

RESULTS

By-patient sensitivities and specificities were determined for each observer. The lowest by-patient sensitivity at the 6 mm or larger polyp threshold was 86%, with 90% specificity. Four observers had 100% by-patient sensitivity at the 10 mm or larger polyp threshold, with 82%-97% specificity. For polyps 10 mm or larger, mean sensitivity and specificity were 98% and 92%, respectively. For the last 20 cases, the average interpretation time per case was 25 minutes. The range of areas under the ROC curve across observers was low: 0.86-0.95.

CONCLUSION

In the described polyp-enriched cohort, novice CT colonographic data readers achieved high sensitivity and good specificity at formative evaluation of a comprehensive training program. Use of a similar comprehensive training method might reduce interreader variability in interpretation accuracy and be useful for reader certification.

Considerations regarding the present and future roles of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer prevention

Effective and safe colonoscopy is essential to colorectal cancer prevention, regardless of the method used for colorectal cancer screening. The level of colorectal cancer incidence reduction provided by colonoscopy and polypectomy varies widely in available studies. There are several mechanisms by which colonoscopy might fail to prevent colorectal cancer, and some of the mechanisms might be overcome by simple currently available measures. Further, advances in colonoscope technology could enhance the effectiveness of colonoscopy or render it less operator-dependent. The large market for colorectal cancer screening in the United States has spawned innovative noncolonoscopic technologies for colorectal cancer and polyp detection. Because these technologies are diagnosis only, their overall impact on outcomes ultimately may be determined by whether they successfully increase adherence to screening (which should reduce colorectal cancer incidence) versus displace patients from colonoscopy screening (which potentially could increase colorectal cancer incidence), as well as their cost effectiveness and the extent to which they reduce colonoscopy complications. As these strategies emerge, monitoring their effects on adherence, cancer prevention, and procedural complications will be needed to optimize their roles relative to primary colonoscopy screening.

Computed tomographic colonography: clinical value

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) has the potential to reliably detect polyps in the colon. Its clinical value is accepted for several indications. The main target is screening asymptomatic people for colorectal cancer (CRC). As in large multi-centre trials controversial results were obtained, acceptance of this indication on a large scale is still pending. Agreement exists that in experienced hands screening can be performed with CTC. This emphasizes the importance of adequate and intensive training. Besides this, other problems have to be solved. A low complication profile is mandatory. Perforation rate is very low. Ultra-low dose radiation should be used. When screening large patient cohorts, CTC will need a time-efficient and cost-effective management without too many false positives and additional exploration. Can therefore a cut-off size of polyp detection safely be installed? Is the flat lesion an issue? Can extra-colonic findings be treated efficiently? A positive relationship with the gastro-enterologists will improve the act of screening. Improvements of scanning technique and software with dose reduction, improved 3D visualisation methods and CAD are steps in the good direction. Finally, optimisation of laxative-free CTC could be invaluable in the development of CTC as a screening tool for CRC.

CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: performance characteristics in an increased-risk population

PURPOSE

To prospectively evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomographic (CT) colonography with limited bowel preparation for the depiction of colonic polyps, by using colonoscopy as the reference standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Institutional review board approval and written informed consent were obtained. Patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer underwent CT colonography after fecal tagging, which consisted of 80 mL of barium sulfate and 180 mL of diatrizoate meglumine. Bisacodyl was added for stool softening. A radiologist and a research fellow evaluated all data independently by using a primary two-dimensional approach. Discrepant findings for lesions 6 mm or larger in diameter were solved with consensus. Segmental unblinding was performed. Per-patient sensitivity and specificity, per-polyp sensitivity, and number of false-positive findings were found (for lesions > or = 6 mm and > or = 10 mm in diameter). Per-patient sensitivities (blinded colonoscopy vs CT colonography) were tested for significance with McNemar statistics. Interobserver variability was analyzed per segment (prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa values [kappa(p)]).

RESULTS

One hundred fourteen of 168 patients (105 men, 63 women; mean age, 56 years) had polyps, with 56 polyps 6 mm or larger and 17 polyps 10 mm or larger. Per-patient sensitivities were not significantly different for CT colonography (consensus reading) and colonoscopy (P > or = .070). Sensitivity of CT colonography for patients with lesions 6 mm or larger and 10 mm or larger was 76% and 82%, respectively, and specificity of CT colonography was 79% and 97%, respectively. Blinded colonoscopy depicted 91% (lesions > or = 6 mm) and 88% (lesions > or = 10 mm) of disease in patients. Per-polyp sensitivity for CT colonography was 70% (lesions > or = 6 mm) and 82% (lesions > or = 10 mm). Number of false-positive findings was 42 (lesions > or = 6 mm) and six (lesions > or = 10 mm). kappa(p) Was 0.88 (lesions > or = 6 mm) and 0.96 (lesions > or = 10 mm).

CONCLUSION

CT colonography with limited bowel preparation has a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 97% for patients with polyps 10 mm or larger.

Virtual colonoscopy: effect of computer-assisted detection (CAD) on radiographer performance

AIM

To investigate the effect of a virtual colonoscopy (VC) computed-assisted detection (CAD) system on polyp detection by trained radiographers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four radiographers trained in VC interpretation and utilization of CAD systems read a total of 62 endoscopically validated VC examinations containing 150 polyps (size range 5-50mm) in four sessions, recording any polyps found and the examination interpretation time, first without and then with the addition of CAD as a "second reader". After a temporal separation of 6 weeks to reduce recall bias, VC examinations were re-read using "concurrent reader" CAD. Interpretation times, polyp detection, and number of false-positives were compared between the different reader paradigms using paired t and paired exact tests.

RESULTS

Overall, use of "second reader" CAD significantly improved polyp detection by 12% (p<0.001, CI 6%,17%)) from 48 to 60%. There was no significant improvement using CAD as a concurrent reader (p=0.20; difference of 7%, CI -3%, 16%) and no significant overall difference in recorded false-positives with second reader or concurrent CAD paradigms compared with unassisted reading (p=0.25 and 0.65, respectively). The mean interpretation time was 21.7 min for unassisted reading, 29.6 (p<0.001) min for second reader and 19.1 min (p=0.12) for concurrent reading paradigms.

CONCLUSION

CAD, when used as a second reader, can significantly improve radiographer reading performance with only a moderate increase in interpretation times.

CT colonography: false-negative interpretations

PURPOSE

To retrospectively evaluate if false-negative interpretations at computed tomographic (CT) colonography are due to observer error.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was HIPAA compliant and had institutional review board approval, with waiver of informed consent. An initial unblinded review of CT colonographic image data was used to generate reconciliation reports for all false-negative polyp candidates 6.0 mm or larger. These findings were then verified by two experienced readers. After reports from the original study and reconciliation reports were reviewed, errors were classified as observer (measurement or perceptual) errors, technical errors (eg, those caused by insufficient distention, fluid), or not reconcilable. Per-polyp and per-patient sensitivity values were calculated for adenomas 6.0 mm or larger in the original data set and again by assuming elimination of technical and observer errors.

RESULTS

Of the original data set of 228 available polyps, 147 were adenomas; for this subgroup, the per-patient sensitivity was 70% and 68% at 10.0- and 6.0-mm thresholds, respectively. When all histologic types were considered, 114 polyps were false-negative findings. Of these, 53% (60 of 114) were attributed to observer-related errors, and 26% were attributed to errors classified as technical. After detailed retrospective reconciliation of individual polyps (so as to exclude any potentially correctable observer error), the per-polyp sensitivity of CT colonography for adenomas 10.0 mm or larger increased to 93%, and the per-patient sensitivity increased to 91%. When observer and technical errors were accounted for, eight (5.4%) of 147 adenomas 6.0 mm or larger could not be detected. If all technical errors and observer errors were scored as true-positive findings, the sensitivity for adenomas 6.0 mm or larger would have been 95% on both a per-polyp and a per-patient basis.

CONCLUSION

The major contributor to error at CT colonography was observer perceptual error, while observer measurement error played a smaller role.

Effect of Slice Thickness and Primary 2D Versus 3D Virtual Dissection on Colorectal Lesion Detection at CT Colonography in 452 Asymptomatic Adults

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to compare the performance of primary 3D search using 360 degree virtual dissection with primary 2D search using a 2.5- versus a 1.25-mm slice thickness.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Four hundred fifty-two asymptomatic patients underwent CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy. Examinations were reconstructed to 1.25- and 2.5-mm slice thicknesses and interpreted using primary 3D search (360 degree virtual dissection) and primary 2D search. Two of three experienced reviewers were randomly assigned to each case; 1,808 interpretations were performed.

RESULTS

There were 64 adenomas > or = 6 mm, 26 of which were large adenomas > or = 1 cm. For adenomas 6-9 mm in diameter, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) using 2.5-mm data sets was 0.66, 0.62, 0.90 and 0.78, 0.69, 0.67 for reviewers 1, 2, and 3, respectively, using primary 3D versus 2D search (p = not significant [NS]). For neoplasms > or = 10 mm, the AUC using 2.5-mm data sets was 0.74, 0.85, 0.89 and 0.66, 0.86, 0.92 for reviewers 1, 2, and 3 using primary 3D versus 2D search (p = NS). There was no significant difference using 1.25-mm collimation. Double review using both primary 3D and 2D search yielded sensitivities of 84% (16/19) and 95% (18/19) for large neoplasms (> or = 1 cm) using 2.5- and 1.25-mm data sets, respectively. Five of five (100%) adenocarcinomas were identified. The sensitivity of colonoscopy for large neoplasms was 77% (20/26) (20% [1/5] for adenocarcinoma).

CONCLUSION

No advantage exists for 1.25- or 2.5-mm slice thickness or for primary 3D versus 2D search at CTC. Double review using primary 3D (virtual dissection) and 2D search reduces interobserver variability and competes with colonoscopy for the detection of large lesions.

Virtual colonoscopy training and accreditation: a national survey of radiologist experience and attitudes in the UK

AIM

Expert consensus recommends directed training and possibly in the future, formal accreditation before independent virtual colonoscopy (VC) reporting. We surveyed radiologists' experience of VC training, compared with barium enema, and assessed attitudes towards accreditation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to 78 consultant radiologists from 72 centres (65 National Health Service hospitals; seven independent primary screening centres) offering a VC service.

RESULTS

Fifty-four (69%) eligible radiologists responded. They had interpreted 18,152 examinations (range 3-1500) in total versus 232,350 (13 times more) barium enemas. Twenty-two (41%) deemed their VC training as inadequate [including five (45%) of screening centre radiologists], and only 14 (26%) had attended a training workshop due to lack of availability (54%) or financial/study leave constraints (24%). Eleven (20%) radiologists routinely double-reported VC examinations versus 37 (69%) barium enemas, yet 21 (39%) considered requirements for VC training were greater than barium enema. Thirty-eight (70%) favoured accreditation beyond internal audit for VC versus 15(28%) for barium enema. Of these 38, seven (18%) favoured "one-off," and 18 (47%) periodic testing, with 16 (42%) favouring external audit alone or in combination with testing. Overall, 42 (78%) considered specific accreditation for reporting screening examinations appropriate and 45 (83%) respondents preferred a national radiological organization to regulate such a scheme.

CONCLUSION

There is wide variability in reporting experience and recommendations for VC training have not been widely adopted, in part due to limited access to dedicated workshops. UK radiologists are generally in favour of VC accreditation, governed by a national radiology organization.

CAD in CT colonography without and with oral contrast agents: progress and challenges

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC), also known as virtual colonoscopy, is an emerging alternative technique for screening of colon cancers. CTC uses CT to provide a series of cross-sectional images of the colon for detection of polyps and masses. Fecal tagging is a means of labeling of residual feces by an oral contrast agent for improving the accuracy in the detection of polyps. Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) for CTC automatically determines the locations of suspicious polyps and masses in CTC and presents them to radiologists, typically as a second opinion. Despite its relatively short history, CAD has become one of the mainstream techniques that could make CTC prime time for screening of colorectal cancer. Rapid technical developments have advanced CAD substantially during the last several years, and a fundamental scheme for the detection of polyps has been established, in which sophisticated 3D image processing, analysis, and display techniques play a pivotal role. The latest CAD systems indicate a clinically acceptable high sensitivity and a low false-positive rate, and observer studies have demonstrated the benefits of these systems in improving radiologists' detection performance. Some technical and clinical challenges, however, remain unresolved before CAD can become a truly useful tool for clinical practice. Also, new challenges are facing CAD as the methods for bowel preparation and image acquisition, such as tagging of fecal residue with oral contrast agents, and interpretation of CTC images evolve. This article reviews the current status and future challenges in CAD for CTC without and with fecal tagging.

Polyp Measurement with CT Colonography: Multiple-Reader, Multiple-Workstation Comparison

OBJECTIVE

The risk of invasive colorectal cancer in colorectal polyps correlates with lesion size. Our purpose was to define the most accurate methods for measuring polyp size at CT colonography (CTC) using three models of workstations and multiple observers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six reviewers measured 24 unique polyps of known size (5, 7, 10, and 12 mm), shape (sessile, flat, and pedunculated), and location (straight or curved bowel segment) using CTC data sets obtained at two doses (5 mAs and 65 mAs) and a previously described colonic phantom model. Reviewers measured the largest diameter of polyps on three proprietary workstations. Each polyp was measured with lung and soft-tissue windows on axial, 2D multiplanar reconstruction (MPR), and 3D images.

RESULTS

There were significant differences among measurements obtained at various settings within each workstation (p < 0.0001). Measurements on 2D images were more accurate with lung window than with soft-tissue window settings (p < 0.0001). For the 65-mAs data set, the most accurate measurements were obtained in analysis of axial images with lung window, 2D MPR images with lung window, and 3D tissue cube images for Wizard, Advantage, and Vitrea workstations, respectively, without significant differences in accuracy among techniques (0.11 < p < 0.59). The mean absolute error values for these optimal settings were 0.48 mm, 0.61 mm, and 0.76 mm, respectively, for the three workstations. Within the ultralow-dose 5-mAs data set the best methods for Wizard, Advantage, and Vitrea were axial with lung window, 2D MPR with lung window, and 2D MPR with lung window, respectively. Use of nearly all measurement methods, except for the Vitrea 3D tissue cube and the Wizard 2D MPR with lung window, resulted in undermeasurement of the true size of the polyps.

CONCLUSION

Use of CTC computer workstations facilitates accurate polyp measurement. For routine CTC examinations, polyps should be measured with lung window settings on 2D axial or MPR images (Wizard and Advantage) or 3D images (Vitrea). When these optimal methods are used, these three commercial workstations do not differ significantly in acquisition of accurate polyp measurements at routine dose settings.

Three-dimensional virtual dissection at CT colonography: unraveling the colon to search for lesions

Computed tomographic (CT) colonography is a promising noninvasive examination for colorectal cancer screening; however, the optimal interpretation strategy remains undecided. Virtual dissection is an innovative technique whereby the three-dimensional (3D) model of the colon is virtually unrolled, sliced open, and displayed as a flat 3D rendering of the mucosal surface, similar to a gross pathologic specimen. This technique has the potential to reduce evaluation time by providing a more rapid 3D image assessment than is possible with an antegrade and retrograde 3D endoluminal fly-through. It may also ultimately improve accuracy by reducing blind spots present with 3D endoluminal displays and by reducing reader fatigue. A disadvantage of virtual dissection is the potential for distortion of colonic lesions and normal anatomy. To avoid potential pitfalls in image interpretation, the radiologist must be familiar with the unique appearance of the normal colon anatomy and of various pathologic findings when using virtual dissection with two-dimensional axial and 3D endoluminal CT colonographic image data sets.

Perceptive errors in CT colonography

Published results to date have indicated a good per patient sensitivity of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) for colorectal cancer and for polyps measuring 10 mm or more together with a very good specificity. Sensitivity and specificity for polyps in the range of 6-10 mm are moderate. These results, however, can be achieved only with meticulous attention to technique including adequate colonic distention, and acquisition of supine and prone thin-section computed tomographic (CT) images. Moreover, there is a significant learning curve involved in the interpretation of CTC studies, with performance statistics improving with operator experience. Radiologists must be comfortable in reporting directly from workstation monitors and have access to and be familiar with software for multiplanar and endoluminal reconstructions. In addition to maximize polyp detection and minimize false positive results, reporting radiologists must have a working knowledge of normal colorectal anatomy and pathology on CTC and be familiar with potential pitfalls in interpretation. Besides the description of several possible causes for perceptive errors, also a literature search of perceptive errors in CTC is included in this paper.

Reader error during CT colonography: causes and implications for training

This study investigated the variability in baseline computed tomography colonography (CTC) performance using untrained readers by documenting sources of error to guide future training requirements. Twenty CTC endoscopically validated data sets containing 32 polyps were consensus read by three unblinded radiologists experienced in CTC, creating a reference standard. Six readers without prior CTC training [four residents and two board-certified subspecialty gastrointestinal (GI) radiologists] read the 20 cases. Readers drew a region of interest (ROI) around every area they considered a potential colonic lesion, even if subsequently dismissed, before creating a final report. Using this final report, reader ROIs were classified as true positive detections, true negatives correctly dismissed, true detections incorrectly dismissed (i.e., classification error), or perceptual errors. Detection of polyps 1-5 mm, 6-9 mm, and > or =10 mm ranged from 7.1% to 28.6%, 16.7% to 41.7%, and 16.7% to 83.3%, respectively. There was no significant difference between polyp detection or false positives for the GI radiologists compared with residents (p=0.67, p=0.4 respectively). Most missed polyps were due to failure of detection rather than characterization (range 82-95%). Untrained reader performance is variable but generally poor. Most missed polyps are due perceptual error rather than characterization, suggesting basic training should focus heavily on lesion detection.

Virtual colonoscopy: current status and future directions

Virtual colonoscopy (CT colonography) is a technique whereby CT images of the cleansed and distended colon are acquired, ostensibly for detecting colonic neoplasia, although also providing additional diagnostic information from extracolonic organs. This article examines the current status of virtual colonoscopy, reviewing the technical parameters, performance characteristics, and issues surrounding implementation in routine clinical practice. Future directions for virtual colonoscopy are explored, including advances toward prepless examinations and automated interpretation.

Nonradiologists as second readers for intraluminal findings at CT colonography

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Multiple trials have documented wide interobserver variability between radiologists interpreting computed tomography colonography (CTC) exams. We sought to determine if nonradiologists could learn to interpret intraluminal findings at CTC with a high degree of sensitivity to determine if they could play a role as second readers in interpreting CTC exams.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seven nonradiologists (five medical students, two radiologic technologists) undertook self-directed CTC training using a teaching file of 50 cases; thereafter, each reader blindly interpreted 50 cases with colonoscopic correlation (30 positive, 20 negative). Results were compared with a previously studied cohort of radiologists. The two technologists additionally repeated the exam after 6 weeks of clinical experience.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of nonradiologists for small (5-9 mm) polyps, large (>9 mm) lesions, and cancers was similar to that of radiologists (0.45 versus 0.63, 0.74 versus 0.71, and 0.80 versus 0.88, respectively). After 6 weeks of clinical experience as second readers, the accuracy of one technologist significantly improved (from 74% to 90%, P = .008), whereas accuracy of the other tended toward improvement (from 74% to 86%%, P = .25). Nonradiologists detected, on average, 6/36 additional polyps (17%) missed by any radiologist, and the sensitivity of 5/7 nonradiologists was significantly greater than at least one of the radiologists (P = .05).

CONCLUSION

Nonradiologists can perform similarly to radiologists in interpreting intraluminal findings at CTC, with nonradiologist performance improving even after experience with more than 100 cases. Skilled nonradiologists may play a vital role as a second reader of intraluminal findings or by performing quality control of examinations before patient dismissal.