CT colonography: false-negative interpretations

Pearls and Pitfalls of Interpretation in CT Colonography

The accuracy of computed tomography (CT) colonography (CTC) requires that the radiologist be well trained in the recognition of pitfalls of interpretation. In order to achieve a high sensitivity and specificity, the interpreting radiologist must be well versed in the causes of both false-positive and false-negative results. In this article, we review the common and uncommon pitfalls of interpretation in CTC.

World Endoscopy Organization Consensus Statements on Post-Colonoscopy and Post-Imaging Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colonoscopy examination does not always detect colorectal cancer (CRC)- some patients develop CRC after negative findings from an examination. When this occurs before the next recommended examination, it is called interval cancer. From a colonoscopy quality assurance perspective, that term is too restrictive, so the term post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) was created in 2010. However, PCCRC definitions and methods for calculating rates vary among studies, making it impossible to compare results. We aimed to standardize the terminology, identification, analysis, and reporting of PCCRCs and CRCs detected after other whole-colon imaging evaluations (post-imaging colorectal cancers [PICRCs]).

METHODS

A 20-member international team of gastroenterologists, pathologists, and epidemiologists; a radiologist; and a non-medical professional met to formulate a series of recommendations, standardize definitions and categories (to align with interval cancer terminology), develop an algorithm to determine most-plausible etiologies, and develop standardized methodology to calculate rates of PCCRC and PICRC. The team followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. A literature review provided 401 articles to support proposed statements; evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. The statements were voted on anonymously by team members, using a modified Delphi approach.

RESULTS

The team produced 21 statements that provide comprehensive guidance on PCCRCs and PICRCs. The statements present standardized definitions and terms, as well as methods for qualitative review, determination of etiology, calculation of PCCRC rates, and non-colonoscopic imaging of the colon.

CONCLUSIONS

A 20-member international team has provided standardized methods for analysis of etiologies of PCCRCs and PICRCs and defines its use as a quality indicator. The team provides recommendations for clinicians, organizations, researchers, policy makers, and patients.

Imaging of colorectal cancer - the clue to individualized treatment

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common gastrointestinal neoplasm and the second most common cause for cancer-related death in Europe. Imaging plays an important role both in the primary diagnosis, treatment evaluation, follow-up, and, to some extent, also in prevention. Like in the clinical setting, colon and rectal cancer have to be distinguished as two quite separate entities with different goals of imaging and, consequently, also different technical requirements. Over the past decade, there have been improvements in both more robust imaging techniques and new data and guidelines that help to use the optimal imaging modality for each scenario. For colon cancer, the continued research on computed tomography (CT) colonography (CTC) has led to high-level evidence that puts this technique on eye height to optical colonoscopy in terms of detection of cancer and polyps ≥10 mm. However, also for smaller polyps and thus for screening purposes, CTC seems to be an optimal tool. In rectal cancer, the technical requirements to perform state-of-the art imaging have recently been defined. Evaluation of T-stage, mesorectal fascia infiltration and extramural vascular invasion are the most important prognostic factors that can be identified on MRI. With this information, risk stratification both for local and distal failure is possible, enabling the clinician to tailor the optimal therapeutic approach in non-metastatic rectal cancer. Imaging of metastatic CRC is also covered, although the complex ramifications of treatment options in the metastatic setting are beyond the scope of this article. In this review, the most important recent developments in the imaging of colon and rectal cancer will be highlighted. If used in an interdisciplinary setting, this can lead to an individualized treatment concept for each patient.

Colon Cancer Screening in Concierge Practice

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the effectiveness of the Center for Executive Medicine (CEM) concierge primary care practice on preventive colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates relative to local and national comparator data.

METHODS

We performed an electronic medical record search encompassing our entire patient population who are between the ages of 50 and 75 years to determine the rate of CRC screening. We compared this rate with the average rate of Medicare Advantage plans reported by our Independent Physician Association (IPA) in 2015 and national health plans reported by the National Committee for Quality Assurance in 2014.

RESULTS

The CEM had a CRC screening rate of 90.2%, which was significantly higher than local IPA Medicare Advantage plans (63.3%) and National Committee for Quality Assurance national plans (57.7%-66.5%). CEM members were significantly more likely than were IPA members to undergo screening (odds ratio 1.425, 95% confidence interval 1.348-1.507, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the CEM practice strategy and processes increase CRC screening rates.

CT colonography with computer-aided detection: recognizing the causes of false-positive reader results

Computed tomography (CT) colonography is a screening modality used to detect colonic polyps before they progress to colorectal cancer. Computer-aided detection (CAD) is designed to decrease errors of detection by finding and displaying polyp candidates for evaluation by the reader. CT colonography CAD false-positive results are common and have numerous causes. The relative frequency of CAD false-positive results and their effect on reader performance on the basis of a 19-reader, 100-case trial shows that the vast majority of CAD false-positive results were dismissed by readers. Many CAD false-positive results are easily disregarded, including those that result from coarse mucosa, reconstruction, peristalsis, motion, streak artifacts, diverticulum, rectal tubes, and lipomas. CAD false-positive results caused by haustral folds, extracolonic candidates, diminutive lesions (<6 mm), anal papillae, internal hemorrhoids, varices, extrinsic compression, and flexural pseudotumors are almost always recognized and disregarded. The ileocecal valve and tagged stool are common sources of CAD false-positive results associated with reader false-positive results. Nondismissable CAD soft-tissue polyp candidates larger than 6 mm are another common cause of reader false-positive results that may lead to further evaluation with follow-up CT colonography or optical colonoscopy. Strategies for correctly evaluating CAD polyp candidates are important to avoid pitfalls from common sources of CAD false-positive results.

Population screening for colorectal cancer by flexible sigmoidoscopy or CT colonography: study protocol for a multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most prevalent type of cancer in Europe. A single flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening at around the age of 60 years prevents about one-third of CRC cases. However, FS screens only the distal colon, and thus mortality from proximal CRC is unaffected. Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is a highly accurate examination that allows assessment of the entire colon. However, the benefit of CTC testing as a CRC screening test is uncertain. We designed a randomized trial to compare participation rate, detection rates, and costs between CTC (with computer-aided detection) and FS as primary tests for population-based screening.

METHODS/DESIGN

An invitation letter to participate in a randomized screening trial comparing CTC versus FS will be mailed to a sample of 20,000 people aged 58 or 60 years, living in the Piedmont region and the Verona district of Italy. Individuals with a history of CRC, adenomas, inflammatory bowel disease, or recent colonoscopy, or with two first-degree relatives with CRC will be excluded from the study by their general practitioners. Individuals responding positively to the invitation letter will be then randomized to the intervention group (CTC) or control group (FS), and scheduled for the screening procedure. The primary outcome parameter of this part of the trial is the difference in advanced neoplasia detection between the two screening tests. Secondary outcomes are cost-effectiveness analysis, referral rates for colonoscopy induced by CTC versus FS, and the expected and perceived burden of the procedures. To compare participation rates for CTC versus FS, 2,000 additional eligible subjects will be randomly assigned to receive an invitation for screening with CTC or FS. In the CTC arm, non-responders will be offered fecal occult blood test (FOBT) as alternative screening test, while in the FS arm, non-responders will receive an invitation letter to undergo screening with either FOBT or CTC. Data on reasons for participation and non-participation will also be collected.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide reliable information concerning benefits and risks of the adoption of CTC as a mass screening intervention in comparison with FS. The trial will also evaluate the role of computer-aided detection in a screening setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01739608.

Noncathartic CT colonography: Image quality assessment and performance and in a screening cohort

OBJECTIVE

Cathartic bowel preparation is a major barrier for colorectal cancer screening. We examined noncathartic CT colonography (CTC) quality and performance using four similar bowel-tagging regimens in an asymptomatic screening cohort.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This prospective study included 564 asymptomatic subjects who underwent noncathartic CTC without dietary modification but with 21 g of barium with or without iodinated oral contrast material (four regimens). The quality of tagging with oral agents was evaluated. A gastrointestinal radiologist evaluated examinations using primary 2D search supplemented by electronic cleansing (EC) and 3D problem solving. Results were compared with complete colonoscopy findings after bowel purgation and with retrospective unblinded evaluation in 556 of the 564 (99%) subjects.

RESULTS

Of the 556 subjects, 7% (37/556) and 3% (16/556) of patients had 52 and 20 adenomatous polyps ≥ 6 and ≥ 10 mm, respectively. The addition of iodine significantly improved the percentage of labeled stool (p ≤ 0.0002) and specificity (80% vs 89-93%, respectively; p = 0.046). The overall sensitivity of noncathartic CTC for adenomatous polyps ≥ 6 mm was 76% (28/37; 95% CI, 59-88%), which is similar to the sensitivity of the iodinated regimens with most patients (sensitivity: 231 patients, 74% [14/19; 95% CI, 49-91%]; 229 patients, 80% [12/15; 95% CI, 52-96%]). The negative predictive value was 98% (481/490), and the lone cancer was detected (0.2%, 1/556). EC was thought to improve conspicuity of 10 of 21 visible polyps ≥ 10 mm.

CONCLUSION

In this prospective study of asymptomatic subjects, the per-patient sensitivity of noncathartic CTC for detecting adenomas ≥ 6 mm was approximately 76%. Inclusion of oral iodine contrast material improves examination specificity and the percentage of labeled stool. EC may improve polyp conspicuity.

Missed lesions at CT colonography: lessons learned

Misinterpretation at CT colonography (CTC) can result in either a colorectal lesion being missed (false-negative) or a false-positive diagnosis. This review will largely focus on potential missed lesions-and ways to avoid such misses. The general causes of false-negative interpretation at CTC can be broadly characterized and grouped into discrete categories related to suboptimal study technique, specific lesion characteristics, anatomic location, and imaging artifacts. Overlapping causes further increase the likelihood of missing a clinically relevant lesion. In the end, if the technical factors of bowel preparation, colonic distention, and robust CTC software are adequately addressed on a consistent basis, and the reader is aware of all the potential pitfalls at CTC, important lesions will seldom be missed.

Computed tomographic colonography versus barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Barium enema (BE) is widely available for diagnosis of colorectal cancer despite concerns about its accuracy and acceptability. Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) might be a more sensitive and acceptable alternative. We aimed to compare CTC and BE for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients in clinical practice.

METHODS

This pragmatic multicentre randomised trial recruited patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer from 21 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were aged 55 years or older and regarded by their referring clinician as suitable for radiological investigation of the colon. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to BE or CTC by computer-generated random numbers, in blocks of six, stratified by trial centre and sex. We analysed the primary outcome-diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large (≥10 mm) polyps-by intention to treat. The trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 95152621.

FINDINGS

3838 patients were randomly assigned to receive either BE (n=2553) or CTC (n=1285). 34 patients withdrew consent, leaving for analysis 2527 assigned to BE and 1277 assigned to CTC. The detection rate of colorectal cancer or large polyps was significantly higher in patients assigned to CTC than in those assigned to BE (93 [7.3%] of 1277 vs 141 [5.6%] of 2527, relative risk 1.31, 95% CI 1.01-1.68; p=0.0390). CTC missed three of 45 colorectal cancers and BE missed 12 of 85. The rate of additional colonic investigation was higher after CTC than after BE (283 [23.5%] of 1206 CTC patients had additional investigation vs 422 [18.3%] of 2300 BE patients; p=0.0003), due mainly to a higher polyp detection rate. Serious adverse events were rare.

INTERPRETATION

CTC is a more sensitive test than BE. Our results suggest that CTC should be the preferred radiological test for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer.

FUNDING

NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme, Cancer Research UK, EPSRC Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare, and NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care.

Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold-standard test for investigation of symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer; computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is an alternative, less invasive test. However, additional investigation after CTC is needed to confirm suspected colonic lesions, and this is an important factor in establishing the feasibility of CTC as an alternative to colonoscopy. We aimed to compare rates of additional colonic investigation after CTC or colonoscopy for detection of colorectal cancer or large (≥10 mm) polyps in symptomatic patients in clinical practice.

METHODS

This pragmatic multicentre randomised trial recruited patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer from 21 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were aged 55 years or older and regarded by their referring clinician as suitable for colonoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to colonoscopy or CTC by computer-generated random numbers, in blocks of six, stratified by trial centre and sex. We analysed the primary outcome-the rate of additional colonic investigation-by intention to treat. The trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 95152621.

FINDINGS

1610 patients were randomly assigned to receive either colonoscopy (n=1072) or CTC (n=538). 30 patients withdrew consent, leaving for analysis 1047 assigned to colonoscopy and 533 assigned to CTC. 160 (30.0%) patients in the CTC group had additional colonic investigation compared with 86 (8.2%) in the colonoscopy group (relative risk 3.65, 95% CI 2.87-4.65; p<0.0001). Almost half the referrals after CTC were for small (<10 mm) polyps or clinical uncertainty, with low predictive value for large polyps or cancer. Detection rates of colorectal cancer or large polyps in the trial cohort were 11% for both procedures. CTC missed 1 of 29 colorectal cancers and colonoscopy missed none (of 55). Serious adverse events were rare.

INTERPRETATION

Guidelines are needed to reduce the referral rate after CTC. For most patients, however, CTC provides a similarly sensitive, less invasive alternative to colonoscopy.

FUNDING

NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme, Cancer Research UK, EPSRC Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare, and NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care.

Machine Learning in Computer-aided Diagnosis of the Thorax and Colon in CT: A Survey

Computer-aided detection (CADe) and diagnosis (CAD) has been a rapidly growing, active area of research in medical imaging. Machine leaning (ML) plays an essential role in CAD, because objects such as lesions and organs may not be represented accurately by a simple equation; thus, medical pattern recognition essentially require "learning from examples." One of the most popular uses of ML is the classification of objects such as lesion candidates into certain classes (e.g., abnormal or normal, and lesions or non-lesions) based on input features (e.g., contrast and area) obtained from segmented lesion candidates. The task of ML is to determine "optimal" boundaries for separating classes in the multidimensional feature space which is formed by the input features. ML algorithms for classification include linear discriminant analysis (LDA), quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA), multilayer perceptrons, and support vector machines (SVM). Recently, pixel/voxel-based ML (PML) emerged in medical image processing/analysis, which uses pixel/voxel values in images directly, instead of features calculated from segmented lesions, as input information; thus, feature calculation or segmentation is not required. In this paper, ML techniques used in CAD schemes for detection and diagnosis of lung nodules in thoracic CT and for detection of polyps in CT colonography (CTC) are surveyed and reviewed.

Magnetic resonance colonography for the detection of colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colonoscopy is the preferred screening test for colorectal neoplasia; the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) detects neoplasias with low levels of sensitivity. Computed tomographic colonography detects neoplasias with high levels of sensitivity but involves exposure to radiation. We investigated whether magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) can be used to screen for colorectal adenomas and cancers.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 286 asymptomatic adults (40-82 years old) who underwent 3 Tesla MRC and colonoscopic examinations on the same day. FOBT was performed before bowel preparation. Colonoscopists were initially blinded to the findings on MRC and unblinded after withdrawal from the respective segments. Sensitivities for adenoma and per-patient sensitivities and specificities were calculated based on the unblinded results of colonoscopy.

RESULTS

We detected 133 adenomas and 2 cancers in 86 patients; 37 adenomas were ≥6 mm, and 20 adenomas were advanced. Sensitivities of MRC and colonoscopy for adenomas ≥6 mm were 78.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.8-90.2) and 97.3% (95% CI, 85.8-99.9); for advanced adenomas these values were 75% (95% CI, 50.9-91.3) and 100% (95% CI, 83.2-100.0), respectively. MRC identified 87.1% (95% CI, 70.2-96.4), colonoscopy 96.8% (95% CI, 83.3-99.9), and FOBT 10.0% (95% CI, 2.1-26.5) of individuals with adenomas ≥6 mm and 83.8% (95% CI, 58.6-96.4), 100% (95% CI, 81.5-100.0), and 17.6% (95% CI, 3.8-43.4) of individuals with advanced neoplasia. Specificities of MRC, colonoscopy, and FOBT for individuals with adenomas ≥6 mm were 95.3% (95% CI, 91.9-97.5), 96.9% (95% CI, 93.9-98.6), and 91.8% (95% CI, 87.6-94.9), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

3 Tesla MRC detects colorectal adenomas ≥6 mm and advanced neoplasia with high levels of sensitivity and specificity. Although MRC detects colorectal neoplasia with lower levels of sensitivity than colonoscopy, it strongly outperforms one-time FOBT.

Teleradiology based CT colonography to screen a population group of a remote island; at average risk for colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

To prospectively assess the performance of teleradiology-based CT colonography to screen a population group of an island, at average risk for colorectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cohort of 514 patients living in Madeira, Portugal, was enrolled in the study. Institutional review board approval was obtained and all patients signed an informed consent. All patients underwent both CT colonography and optical colonoscopy. CT colonography was interpreted by an experienced radiologist at a remote centre using tele-radiology. Per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated for colorectal adenomas and advanced neoplasia ≥6 mm.

RESULTS

510 patients were included in the study. CT colonography obtained a per-patient sensitivity, specificity, PPV and, NPV for adenomas ≥6 mm of 98.11% (88.6-99.9% 95% CI), 90.97% (87.8-93.4% 95% CI), 56.52% (45.8-66.7% 95% CI), 99.75% (98.4-99.9% 95% CI). For advanced neoplasia ≥6 mm per-patient sensitivity, specificity, PPV and, NPV were 100% (86.7-100% 95% CI), 87.07% (83.6-89.9% 95% CI), 34.78% (25.3-45.5% 95% CI) and 100% (98.8-100% 95% CI), respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this prospective trial, teleradiology-based CT colonography was accurate to screen a patient cohort of a remote island, at average risk for colorectal cancer.

Intravenous contrast enhanced computed tomography colonoscopy in children with suspected colonic polyps

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of intravenous contrast enhanced computed tomographic colonoscopy (IVCTC) in the diagnosis of clinically suspected colorectal polyps in children, using conventional colonoscopy (CC) as the gold standard.

METHODS

This was a prospective study conducted between July 2008 and June 2010. 30 pediatric patients with history of rectal bleeding and clinically suspected to have colorectal polyps were enrolled. All of the patients underwent IVCTC followed by CC. 30 IVCTC and 31 CC were performed in 30 patients. The findings of IVCTC were compared with those of CC. Statistical analysis was performed to obtain diagnostic performance values of IVCTC on per polyp (sensitivity and positive predictive value) and per patient (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value) basis.

RESULTS

By IVCTC, 63 polyps were detected in 28 patients of which 53 polyps were eligible for inclusion in the statistical analysis. 60 polyps were detected by CC in 28 patients of which 50 polyps were eligible for inclusion in the statistical analysis. The per polyp sensitivity and positive predictive values were 94% and 88.6% respectively. The per patient sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive values were 96.4, 50, 96.4, and 50% respectively. Twenty polyps, in 10 patients, were visualized only after intravenous contrast administration of which 5 polyps, in 5 patients, were likely to have been missed in the absence of the intravenous contrast injection as these polyps were submerged in fluid. Four patients would have had a false negative CTC examination if the intravenous contrast had not been injected; while in another patient, the number of polyps would have been underestimated.

CONCLUSION

CTC is capable of serving as a safe and efficient non-invasive tool for evaluating children with clinically suspected colorectal polyps. Administration of intravenous contrast improves the sensitivity of polyp detection on CTC.

A review of computer-aided diagnosis in thoracic and colonic imaging

Medical imaging has been indispensable in medicine since the discovery of x-rays. Medical imaging offers useful information on patients' medical conditions and on the causes of their symptoms and diseases. As imaging technologies advance, a large number of medical images are produced which physicians/radiologists must interpret. Thus, computer aids are demanded and become indispensable in physicians' decision making based on medical images. Consequently, computer-aided detection and diagnosis (CAD) has been investigated and has been an active research area in medical imaging. CAD is defined as detection and/or diagnosis made by a radiologist/physician who takes into account the computer output as a "second opinion". In CAD research, detection and diagnosis of lung and colorectal cancer in thoracic and colonic imaging constitute major areas, because lung and colorectal cancers are the leading and second leading causes, respectively, of cancer deaths in the U.S. and also in other countries. In this review, CAD of the thorax and colon, including CAD for detection and diagnosis of lung nodules in thoracic CT, and that for detection of polyps in CT colonography, are reviewed.

Efficacy of computer-aided detection as a second reader for 6-9-mm lesions at CT colonography: multicenter prospective trial

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of computer-aided detection (CAD) as a second reader on the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomographic (CT) colonography in detecting 6-9-mm colorectal cancer (CRC) lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Individuals with clinical indications for colonoscopy--either for symptoms or as part of participating in a surveillance program or CRC screening--were prospectively enrolled at one of 10 academic centers between July 2007 and May 2009. Institutional review board approval was obtained at each clinical site, and all participants provided written informed consent. All participants underwent CT colonography and colonoscopy on the same day. Experienced readers interpreted the CT colonography images unassisted and then reviewed all colorectal lesion-like structures pinpointed by the CAD algorithm. Segmental unblinding of CT colonoscopy findings at colonoscopy was utilized. The sensitivity and specificity of unassisted and CAD-assisted reading in identifying individuals with 6-9-mm lesions were calculated and compared by means of pairwise analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 618 participants (mean age, 57.9 years; 54.5% male) were included in the final analysis. Of these participants, 464 (75.1%) had no lesions 6 mm or larger, and 52 (8.4%) had 6-9-mm lesions. The sensitivity of CT colonography with unassisted reading and that with CAD-assisted reading in identifying individuals with 6-9-mm lesions was 65.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 50.9%, 78.0%) and 76.9% (95% CI: 63.2%, 87.5%; P = .016), respectively. No significant change in specificity was observed: The specificity of CT colonography with unassisted and that with CAD-assisted reading was 91.8% (95% CI: 88.9%, 94.1%) and 90.9% (95% CI: 88.0%, 93.4%; P = .063), respectively. Evaluation of CAD candidates required an additional 1.6 minutes (25th-75th percentile: 1.0 minute to 3.4 minutes).

CONCLUSION

The addition of CAD to reading performed by experienced readers resulted in a significant benefit in the detection of 6-9-mm polyps at CT colonography in this cohort.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12120376/-/DC1.

CAD-associated reader error in CT colonography

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Computed tomographic colonographic interpretation with computer-aided detection (CAD) may be superior to unaided viewing, although polyp characteristics may influence accuracy. Reader error due to polyp characteristics was evaluated in a multiple-case, multiple-reader trial of computed tomographic colonography with CAD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two experts retrospectively reviewed 52 positive cases (74 polyps) and categorized them as hard, moderate, or easy to detect. Each case was evaluated without and with CAD. Features that may influence a reader's ability to detect a polyp or to accept or reject a CAD mark were tabulated. The association between polyp characteristics and detection rates in the trial was assessed. The difference in detection rates (CAD vs unassisted) was calculated, and regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Of 64 polyps found by CAD, experts categorized 20 as hard, 28 as moderate, and 16 as easy to detect. Reader characterization errors predominated (47.3%) over other errors. Factors associated with lower detection rates included small size, flat morphology, and resemblance to a thickened fold. CAD was superior for polyps resembling lipomas compared to those that did not resemble lipomas (average increase in detection rate with CAD, 12.8% vs 5.5%; P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Polyp characteristic may impair computed tomographic colonographic interpretation augmented by CAD. Readers can avoid errors of measurement by evaluating diminutive polyp candidates with sample measurements. Caution should be taken when evaluating focally thick folds and when using visual impression to dismiss a polyp candidate as a lipoma when it is submerged in densely tagged fluid.

Current status on performance of CT colonography and clinical indications

CT colonography (CTC) is a robust and reliable imaging test of the colon. Accuracy for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) is as high as conventional colonoscopy (CC). Identification of polyp is size dependent, with large lesions (≥10mm) accurately detected and small lesions (6-9mm) identified with moderate to good sensitivity. Recent studies show good sensitivity for the identification of nonpolypoid (flat) lesions as well. Current CTC indications include the evaluation of patients who had undergone a previous incomplete CC or those who are unfit for CC (elderly and frail individuals, patients with underlying severe clinical conditions, or with contraindication to sedation). CTC can also be efficiently used in the assessment of diverticular disease (excluding patients with acute diverticulitis, where the exam should be postponed), before laparoscopic surgery for CRC (to have an accurate localization of the lesion), in the evaluation of colonic involvement in the case of deep pelvic endometriosis (replacing barium enema). CTC is also a safe procedure in patients with colostomy. For CRC screening, CTC should be considered an opportunistic screening test (not available for population, or mass screening) to be offered to asymptomatic average-risk individuals, of both genders, starting at age 50. The use in individuals with positive family history should be discussed with the patient first. Absolute contraindication is to propose CTC for surveillance of genetic syndromes and chronic inflammatory bowel diseases (in particular, ulcerative colitis). The use of CTC in the follow-up after surgery for CRC is achieving interesting evidences despite the fact that literature data are still relatively weak in terms of numerosity of the studied populations. In patients who underwent previous polypectomy CTC cannot be recommended as first test because debate is still open. It is desirable that in the future CTC would be the first-line and only diagnostic test for colonic diseases, leaving to CC only a therapeutic role.

Computer-aided detection of colorectal polyps in CT colonography with and without fecal tagging: a stand-alone evaluation

PURPOSE

To evaluate the stand-alone performance of a computer-aided detection (CAD) algorithm for colorectal polyps in a large heterogeneous CT colonography (CTC) database that included both tagged and untagged datasets.

METHODS

Written, informed consent was waived for this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective study. CTC datasets from 2063 patients were assigned to training (n = 374) and testing (n = 1689). The test set consisted of 836 untagged and 853 tagged examinations not used for CAD training. Examinations were performed at 15 sites in the United States, Asia, and Europe, using 4- to 64-multidetector-row computed tomography and various acquisition parameters. CAD sensitivities were calculated on a per-patient and per-polyp basis for polyps measuring ≥6 mm. The reference standard was colonoscopy in 1588 (94%) and consensus interpretation by expert radiologists in 101 (6%) patients. Statistical testing employed χ, logistic regression, and Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTS

In 383 of 1689 individuals, 564 polyps measuring ≥6 mm were identified by the reference standard (347 polyps: 6-9 mm and 217 polyps: ≥10 mm). Overall, CAD per-patient sensitivity was 89.6% (343/383), with 89.0% (187/210) for untagged and 90.2% (156/173) for tagged datasets (P = 0.72). Overall, per-polyp sensitivity was 86.9% (490/564), with 84.4% (270/320) for untagged and 90.2% (220/244) for tagged examinations (P = 068). The mean false-positive rate per patient was 5.14 (median, 4) in untagged and 4.67 (median, 4) in tagged patient datasets (P = 0.353).

CONCLUSION

Stand-alone CAD can be applied to both tagged and untagged CTC studies without significant performance differences. Detection rates are comparable to human readers at a relatively low false-positive rate, making CAD a useful tool in clinical practice.

Computed tomographic colonography in preoperative evaluation of colorectal tumors: a prospective study

Background

This study aimed to assess the usefulness of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in preoperative evaluation of colorectal tumors and the entire bowel including endoscopically inaccessible regions.

Methods

Colonoscopy and CTC were performed for 49 patients. The tumor and the entire colon were assessed, and the results were compared with colonoscopy. The extraluminal findings of CTC were compared with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and the pelvis in 33 patients. All these patients had undergone surgery. A comparison of results for tumor node metastasis classification between CTC, CT, and histopathology was performed.

Results

Exploration of the entire colon was possible for 89.8% of the patients using CTC and 49.0% of the patients using colonoscopy. Bowel cleansing was assessed as worse with CTC. In the evaluation of tumor location and morphologic type, CTC was congruent with colonoscopy. Colonoscopy enabled approximate tumor size and volume to be evaluated for only 59.2% (29/49) and 30.6% (15/49) of patients, respectively, whereas CTC enabled evaluation of all 48 (100.0%) visualized tumors. Wall thickening, outer contour, and suspected infiltration of surrounding tissues and organs are impossible to determine with colonoscopy but can be determined with CTC. Using CTC, two additional tumors were found proximate to occlusive masses in endoscopically inaccessible regions.

Conclusion

Computed tomographic colonography is a useful method for diagnosing colorectal tumors. It allows the clinician to diagnose tumor, determine local tumor progression, and detect synchronous lesions in the large bowel including endoscopically inaccessible regions.

The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) and Image Database Resource Initiative (IDRI): a completed reference database of lung nodules on CT scans

PURPOSE

The development of computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) methods for lung nodule detection, classification, and quantitative assessment can be facilitated through a well-characterized repository of computed tomography (CT) scans. The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) and Image Database Resource Initiative (IDRI) completed such a database, establishing a publicly available reference for the medical imaging research community. Initiated by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), further advanced by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH), and accompanied by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through active participation, this public-private partnership demonstrates the success of a consortium founded on a consensus-based process.

METHODS

Seven academic centers and eight medical imaging companies collaborated to identify, address, and resolve challenging organizational, technical, and clinical issues to provide a solid foundation for a robust database. The LIDC/IDRI Database contains 1018 cases, each of which includes images from a clinical thoracic CT scan and an associated XML file that records the results of a two-phase image annotation process performed by four experienced thoracic radiologists. In the initial blinded-read phase, each radiologist independently reviewed each CT scan and marked lesions belonging to one of three categories ("nodule > or =3 mm," "nodule <3 mm," and "non-nodule > or =3 mm"). In the subsequent unblinded-read phase, each radiologist independently reviewed their own marks along with the anonymized marks of the three other radiologists to render a final opinion. The goal of this process was to identify as completely as possible all lung nodules in each CT scan without requiring forced consensus.

RESULTS

The Database contains 7371 lesions marked "nodule" by at least one radiologist. 2669 of these lesions were marked "nodule > or =3 mm" by at least one radiologist, of which 928 (34.7%) received such marks from all four radiologists. These 2669 lesions include nodule outlines and subjective nodule characteristic ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

The LIDC/IDRI Database is expected to provide an essential medical imaging research resource to spur CAD development, validation, and dissemination in clinical practice.

CT colonography: avoiding traps and pitfalls

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a reliable technique for detecting tumoral lesions in the colon. However, good performance of polyp detection is only achieved if experienced CTC radiologists combine meticulous interpretation with state-of-the-art CTC technique. To reach this experience level, CTC training is mandatory. With a considerably long and steep learning curve, it has been demonstrated that in inexperienced hands both technical failure and observer errors stand for the majority of missed lesions. The purpose of this pictorial review is to give an overview of traps and pitfalls in CTC imaging resulting in false negative and positive findings, and how to avoid them by application of state-of-the-art CTC technique and interpretation.

Bowel Preparation Regimen for Computed Tomography Colonography

Purpose

This study was designed to determine whether a reduction in oral contrast dose and a change in timing of administration will result in less residual material in the colonic lumen.

Method

We retrospectively assessed, in a blinded fashion, the amount and nature of residual material in the colon in 40 patients who received computed tomography colonography. Half of the cohort received the standard bowel-preparation regimen, whereas a sex- and age-matched test arm received the modified regimen. A scoring system that consisted of metrics to quantify the nature and extent of residual fluid and solid material was defined. Image analysis was conducted with the investigators blinded to the group assignment of each patient. Three different trained observers independently reviewed and scored the 6 colonic segments in supine and prone positions for each patient in the cohort. In cases in which interobserver discrepancies existed, the observers reanalyzed the images together to come to an agreement on scores.

Results

The new bowel-preparation regimen resulted in significantly less “sticky coat” ( P < .005), a problematic phenomenon in which the colonic mucosa is covered in a thin coating of residual contrast and fecal material. There was no difference in the amount of residual fluid. Fewer masses of stool were noted with the new preparation, but this was not found to be statistically significant.

Conclusion

A new bowel-preparation regimen that consisted of lower quantities of contrast administered earlier in the day preceding computed tomography colonography resulted in a lower incidence of adherent contrast and fecal matter. The reduction of this “sticky coat” problem not only improved radiologic analysis of the colon but may permit same-day therapy via colonoscopy if indicated on imaging.

Effect of computer-aided detection for CT colonography in a multireader, multicase trial

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of using computer-aided detection (CAD) in second-read mode on readers' accuracy in interpreting computed tomographic (CT) colonographic images.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The contributing institutions performed the examinations under approval of their local institutional review board, with waiver of informed consent, for this HIPAA-compliant study. A cohort of 100 colonoscopy-proved cases was used: In 52 patients with findings positive for polyps, 74 polyps of 6 mm or larger were observed in 65 colonic segments; in 48 patients with findings negative for polyps, no polyps were found. Nineteen blinded readers interpreted each case at two different times, with and without the assistance of a commercial CAD system. The effect of CAD was assessed in segment-level and patient-level receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses.

RESULTS

Thirteen (68%) of 19 readers demonstrated higher accuracy with CAD, as measured with the segment-level area under the ROC curve (AUC). The readers' average segment-level AUC with CAD (0.758) was significantly greater (P = .015) than the average AUC in the unassisted read (0.737). Readers' per-segment, per-patient, and per-polyp sensitivity for all polyps of 6 mm or larger was higher (P < .011, .007, .005, respectively) for readings with CAD compared with unassisted readings (0.517 versus 0.465, 0.521 versus 0.466, and 0.477 versus 0.422, respectively). Sensitivity for patients with at least one large polyp of 10 mm or larger was also higher (P < .047) with CAD than without (0.777 versus 0.743). Average reader sensitivity also improved with CAD by more than 0.08 for small adenomas. Use of CAD reduced specificity of readers by 0.025 (P = .05).

CONCLUSION

Use of CAD resulted in a significant improvement in overall reader performance. CAD improves reader sensitivity when measured per segment, per patient, and per polyp for small polyps and adenomas and also reduces specificity by a small amount.

Bowel preparation suitable for same-day computed tomography colonography and colonoscopy

PURPOSE

This study was designed to evaluate whether a bowel preparation used for computed tomography (CT) colonography could also be suitable for same-day colonoscopy regardless of which test was done first.

METHOD

Six different endoscopists working at 3 separate hospitals evaluated 75 patients who underwent colonoscopy after receiving a bowel preparation that contained contrast material used to tag fecal and fluid material to facilitate CT colonography. This bowel preparation has been used in more than 1500 CT colonography studies. Evaluation included assessment of whether the colon was clean and dry, and whether the contrast material caused any impairment of visualization or clogging of the endoscopes. Some of the patients had first undergone CT colonography followed by same-day colonoscopy, whereas other patients had colonoscopy as their initial test.

RESULTS

Although the contrast material was sometimes perceptible, the volumes were very small, and caused no impairment of mucosal visualization and no clogging of the endoscopes. The bowel preparation was well tolerated. Same-day CT colonography and colonoscopy with fecal tagging was technically possible.

CONCLUSION

A simple, fairly low cost 1-day bowel preparation with fluid and fecal tagging is suitable for CT colonography and colonoscopy done the same day in either order. However, the preferences of individual endoscopists and difficulties with making oral contrast agents readily available are challenges to widespread adoption of a common bowel preparation regimen.

CT colonography and non-polypoid colorectal neoplasms

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) has been reported to be as effective as optical colonoscopy in the detection of significant adenomas. However, there are widely conflicting performance data in relation to detection of flat neoplasia. This article describes the potential and limitations of CTC and computer-aided diagnosis in the detection of flat neoplasms.

Increasing computer-aided detection specificity by projection features for CT colonography

PURPOSE

A large number of false positives (FPs) generated by computer-aided detection (CAD) schemes is likely to distract radiologists' attention and decrease their interpretation efficiency. This study aims to develop projection-based features which characterize true and false positives to increase the specificity while maintaining high sensitivity in detecting colonic polyps.

METHODS

In this study, two-dimensional projection images are obtained from each initial polyp candidate or volume of interest, and features are extracted from both the gray and color projection images to differentiate FPs from true positives. These projection features were tested to exclude different types of FPs, such as haustral folds, rectal tubes, and residue stool using a database of 325 patient studies (from two different institutions), which includes 556 scans at supine and/or prone positions with 347 polyps and masses sized from 5 to 60 mm. For comparison, several well-established features were used to generate a baseline reference. The experimental evaluation was conducted for large polyps (> or = 10 mm) and medium-sized polyps (5-9 mm) separately.

RESULTS

For large polyps, the additional usage of the projection features reduces the FP rate from 5.31 to 1.92 per scan at the comparable by-polyp sensitivity level of 93.1%. For medium-sized polyps, the FP rate is reduced from 8.89 to 5.23 at the sensitivity level of 80.6%. The percentages of FP reduction are 63.9% and 41.2% for the large and medium-sized polyps, respectively, without sacrificing detection sensitivity.

CONCLUSIONS

The results have demonstrated that the new projection features can effectively reduce the FPs and increase the detection specificity without sacrificing the sensitivity. CAD of colonic polyps is supposed to help radiologists to improve their performance in interpreting computed tomographic colonography images.

CT colonography: advanced computer-aided detection scheme utilizing MTANNs for detection of "missed" polyps in a multicenter clinical trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to develop an advanced computer-aided detection (CAD) scheme utilizing massive-training artificial neural networks (MTANNs) to allow detection of "difficult" polyps in CT colonography (CTC) and to evaluate its performance on false-negative (FN) CTC cases that radiologists "missed" in a multicenter clinical trial.

METHODS

The authors developed an advanced CAD scheme consisting of an initial polyp-detection scheme for identification of polyp candidates and a mixture of expert MTANNs for substantial reduction in false positives (FPs) while maintaining sensitivity. The initial polyp-detection scheme consisted of (1) colon segmentation based on anatomy-based extraction and colon-based analysis and (2) detection of polyp candidates based on a morphologic analysis on the segmented colon. The mixture of expert MTANNs consisted of (1) supervised enhancement of polyps and suppression of various types of nonpolyps, (2) a scoring scheme for converting output voxels into a score for each polyp candidate, and (3) combining scores from multiple MTANNs by the use of a mixing artificial neural network. For testing the advanced CAD scheme, they created a database containing 24 FN cases with 23 polyps (range of 6-15 mm; average of 8 mm) and a mass (35 mm), which were "missed" by radiologists in CTC in the original trial in which 15 institutions participated.

RESULTS

The initial polyp-detection scheme detected 63% (15/24) of the missed polyps with 21.0 (505/24) FPs per patient. The MTANNs removed 76% of the FPs with loss of one true positive; thus, the performance of the advanced CAD scheme was improved to a sensitivity of 58% (14/24) with 8.6 (207/24) FPs per patient, whereas a conventional CAD scheme yielded a sensitivity of 25% at the same FP rate (the difference was statistically significant).

CONCLUSIONS

With the advanced MTANN CAD scheme, 58% of the polyps missed by radiologists in the original trial were detected and with a reasonable number of FPs. The results suggest that the use of an advanced MTANN CAD scheme may potentially enhance the detection of "difficult" polyps.

Improving the accuracy of CTC interpretation: computer-aided detection

Computer-aided polyp detection aims to improve the accuracy of the colonography interpretation. The computer searches the colonic wall to look for polyplike protrusions and presents a list of suspicious areas to a physician for further analysis. Computer-aided polyp detection has developed rapidly in the past decade in the laboratory setting and has sensitivities comparable with those of experts. Computer-aided polyp detection tends to help inexperienced readers more than experienced ones and may also lead to small reductions in specificity. In its currently proposed use as an adjunct to standard image interpretation, computer-aided polyp detection serves as a spellchecker rather than an efficiency enhancer.

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.

Comparison of 2D and 3D views for evaluation of flat lesions in CT colonography

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Flat lesions in the colon may result in false-negative computed tomography colonography interpretations. It is unknown whether flat lesions are better measured on two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) images and which settings are optimal for enhanced reproducibility and decreased variability. We evaluated these factors to determine whether 2D or 3D is best for flat lesion measurements.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Eighty-eight lesions in 66 patients from a previously published clinical trial were analyzed. Lesions were viewed with four methods including 2D at three window/level settings and 3D endoluminal view. Lesions in either supine or prone were counted as one dataset. Long axis and height were measured. Criteria of "height" (<or=3 mm high) or "ratio" (height <or=half the long axis) were applied. A subset of lesions was subject to inter- and intra-observer variability analysis.

RESULTS

With the "height" criterion, more datasets were classified as flat in 2D flat (n = 76), 2D soft tissue (n = 82), and 3D (n = 73) views than in the 2D lung (n = 49) view. If long axis is used as the key metric, endoluminal 3D (12.1%) views significantly showed the least inter-observer variability compared to lung (18.9%) or soft tissue (20.2%) views. Intra-observer variability was low overall for all methods.

CONCLUSION

When characterizing lesions as flat, a consistent viewing method should be used. To minimize inter-observer variability (such as when following a patient over time), it is best to use the ratio criterion for flat lesion definition incorporating the single longest dimension on 3D views as the key metric.

Polyp characteristics correctly annotated by computer-aided detection software but ignored by reporting radiologists during CT colonography

PURPOSE

To retrospectively describe the characteristics of polyps incorrectly dismissed by radiologists despite appropriate computer-aided detection (CAD) prompting during computed tomographic (CT) colonography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ethics committee approval and patient informed consent were obtained from institutions that provided the data sets used in this HIPAA-compliant study. A total of 111 polyps that had a diameter of at least 6 mm and were detected with CAD were collated from three previous studies in which researchers investigated radiologist performance with and without CAD (total, 25 readers). Two new observers graded each polyp with predefined criteria, including polyp size, morphology, and location; data set quality; ease of visualization; tagging use and polyp coating; colonic curvature; CAD mark obscuration; and number of false-positive findings. The 86 polyps that were missed before CAD (those that were unreported by one or more original readers) were divided into those that remained unreported after CAD (no CAD gain, n = 36) and those that were reported correctly by at least one additional reader (CAD gain, n = 50). Logistic-regression analysis and the Fisher exact and Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare the results of both groups with each other and with a control group of 25 polyps, all of which were detected by readers without CAD.

RESULTS

Before CAD, polyps 10 mm in diameter or larger, those that were rated easy to visualize, and those that were uncoated by tagged fluid were less likely to be missed (72%, 76%, and 80% of control polyps vs 43%, 43%, and 59% of missed polyps, respectively; P < .001, P < .01, and P < .03, respectively). After CAD, the odds of CAD gain decreased with increasing polyp size (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval: 0.85, 1.00; P = .04) and irregular morphology (odds ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval: 0.08, 0.92; P = .04).

CONCLUSION

Larger irregular polyps are a common source of incorrect radiologist dismissal, despite correct CAD prompting.

[Indications for and results of CT colonography: from screening to the symptomatic patient]

CT colonography (CTC) is also referred to as virtual colonoscopy and is being used with increasing frequency in radiological practice. While there are still no generally accepted, clear-cut indications for its use in mass colorectal cancer screening, there is evidence that this investigation is useful in patients in whom colonoscopy has not been successful or who have known stenotic lesions in the colon. Recent results of significant comparative studies of CTC and conventional colonoscopy will have some influence on the future place of CTC in screening for cancer of the bowel; they show the great potential of CT-aided bowel examination.

A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard

OBJECTIVE

In diagnostic accuracy studies, the reference standard may be imperfect or not available in all patients. We systematically reviewed the proposed solutions for these situations and generated methodological guidance.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Review of methodological articles.

RESULTS

We categorized the solutions into four main groups. The first group includes methods that impute or adjust for missing data on the reference standard. The second group consists of methods that correct estimates of accuracy obtained with an imperfect reference standard. In the third group a reference standard is constructed by combining multiple test results through a predefined rule, based on a consensus procedure, or through statistical modeling. In the fourth group, the diagnostic accuracy paradigm is abandoned in favor of validation studies that relate index test results to relevant clinical data, such as history, future clinical events, and response to therapy.

CONCLUSION

Most of the methods try to impute, adjust, or construct a reference standard. In situations that deviate only marginally from the classical diagnostic accuracy paradigm, these are valuable methods. In cases where an acceptable reference standard does not exist, the concept of clinical test validation may provide an alternative paradigm to evaluate a diagnostic test.

Primary uncleansed 2D versus primary electronically cleansed 3D in limited bowel preparation CT-colonography. Is there a difference for novices and experienced readers?

The purpose of this study was to compare a primary uncleansed 2D and a primary electronically cleansed 3D reading strategy in CTC in limited prepped patients. Seventy-two patients received a low-fibre diet with oral iodine before CT-colonography. Six novices and two experienced observers reviewed both cleansed and uncleansed examinations in randomized order. Mean per-polyp sensitivity was compared between the methods by using generalized estimating equations. Mean per-patient sensitivity, and specificity were compared using the McNemar test. Results were stratified for experience (experienced observers versus novice observers). Mean per-polyp sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger was significantly higher for novices using cleansed 3D (65%; 95%CI 57–73%) compared with uncleansed 2D (51%; 95%CI 44–59%). For experienced observers there was no significant difference. Mean per-patient sensitivity for polyps 6 mm or larger was significantly higher for novices as well: respectively 75% (95%CI 70–80%) versus 64% (95%CI 59–70%). For experienced observers there was no statistically significant difference. Specificity for both novices and experienced observers was not significantly different. For novices primary electronically cleansed 3D is better for polyp detection than primary uncleansed 2D.

Conspicuity of colorectal polyps at CT colonography: visual assessment, CAD performance, and the important role of polyp height

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The factors that influence the conspicuity of polyps on computed tomographic (CT) colonography (CTC) are poorly understood. The aim of this study is to compare radiologists' visual assessment of polyp conspicuity to quantitative image features and show the relationship between visual conspicuity and the detection of colonic polyps by computer-aided detection (CAD) on CTC.

METHODS

One polyp (size range 6-10 mm) was selected from the CTC examination of each of 29 patients from a larger cohort. All patients underwent oral contrast-enhanced CTC with same-day optical colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. The polyps were analyzed by a previously validated CAD system and placed into one of two groups (detected [n = 12] or not detected [n = 17] by CAD). The study population was intentionally enriched with polyps that were not detected by the CAD system. Four board-certified radiologists, blinded to the CAD results, reviewed two- and three-dimensional CTC images of the polyps and scored the conspicuity of the polyps using a 4-point scale (0 = least conspicuous, 3 = most conspicuous). Polyp height and width were measured by a trained observer. A t-test (two-tailed, unpaired equal variance) was done to determine statistical significance. Intra- and interobserver variabilities of the conspicuity scores were assessed using the weighted kappa test. Regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship of conspicuity to polyp height and width.

RESULTS

A statistically significant difference was found between the average conspicuity scores for polyps that were detected by CAD compared to those that were not (2.3 +/- 0.6 vs. 1.4 +/- 0.8) (P = .004). There was moderate intraobserver agreement of the conspicuity scores (weighted kappa 0.57 +/- 0.09). Interobserver agreement was fair (average weighted kappa for six pair-wise comparisons, 0.38 +/- 0.15). Conspicuity was correlated with manual measurement of polyp height (r(2) = 0.38-0.56, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This CAD system tends to detect 6-10 mm polyps that are more visually conspicuous. Polyp height is a major determinant of visual conspicuity. The generalizability of these findings to other CAD systems is currently unknown. Nevertheless, CAD developers may need to specifically target flatter and less conspicuous polyps for CAD to better assist the radiologist to find polyps in this clinically important size category.

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.