| 1. |
- Fisichella, Valeria A, 1974, et al.
(författare)
-
Computer-aided detection (CAD) as a second reader using perspective filet view at CT colonography: effect on performance of inexperienced readers.
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Clinical Radiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1365-229X .- 0009-9260. ; 64:10, s. 972-82
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIM: To evaluate whether computer-aided detection (CAD) as a second reader using perspective filet view [three-dimensional (3D) filet] improves the performance of inexperienced readers at computed tomography colonography (CTC) compared with unassisted 3D filet and unassisted two-dimensional (2D) CTC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty symptomatic patients underwent CTC and same-day colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. Two inexperienced readers read the CTC studies on 3D filet and 2D several weeks apart. Four months later, readers re-read the cases only evaluating CAD marks using 3D filet. Suspicious CAD marks not previously described on 3D filet were recorded. Jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC-1) analysis was used to compare the observers' performances in detecting lesions with 3D filet, 2D and 3D filet with CAD. RESULTS: One hundred and three lesions > or =3mm were detected at colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. CAD alone had a sensitivity of 73% (75/103) at a mean false-positive rate per patient of 12.8 in supine and 11.4 in prone. For inexperienced readers sensitivities with 3D filet with CAD were 58% (60/103) and 48% (50/103) with an improvement of 14-16 percentage points (p<0.05) compared with 2D and of 10-11 percentage points (p<0.05) compared with 3D filet. For inexperienced readers, the false-positive rate was 25-41% and 71-200% higher with 3D filet with CAD compared with 3D filet and 2D, respectively. JAFROC-1 analysis showed no significant differences in per-lesion overall performance among reading modes (p=0.8). CONCLUSION: CAD applied as a second reader using 3D filet increased both sensitivity and the number of false positives by inexperienced readers compared with 3D filet and 2D, thus not improving overall performance, i.e., the ability to distinguish between lesions and non-lesions.
|
|
| 2. |
- Fisichella, Valeria A, 1974, et al.
(författare)
-
Primary three-dimensional analysis with perspective-filet view versus primary two-dimensional analysis: evaluation of lesion detection by inexperienced readers at computed tomographic colonography in symptomatic patients
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Acta Radiologica. - : SAGE Publications. - 0284-1851 .- 1600-0455. ; 50:3, s. 244-55
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: “Perspective-filet view” is a novel three-dimensional (3D) viewing technique for computed tomography colonography (CTC). Studies with experienced readers have shown a sensitivity for perspective-filet view similar to that of 2D or 3D endoluminal fly-through in detection of colorectal lesions. It is not known whether perspective-filet view, compared to axial images, improves lesion detection by inexperienced readers. Purpose: To compare primary 3D analysis using perspective-filet view (3D Filet) with primary 2D analysis, as used by inexperienced CTC readers. Secondary aims were to compare lesion detection by 3D Filet when used by experienced and inexperienced readers, and to evaluate the effect of combined 3D Filet + 2D analysis. Material and Methods: Fifty symptomatic patients were prospectively enrolled. An experienced reader performed 3D Filet analysis followed by complete 2D analysis (3D Filet + 2D), before colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. Two inexperienced readers (readers 2 and 3), blinded to CTC and colonoscopy findings, retrospectively performed 3D Filet analysis and, after 5 weeks, 2D analysis. True positives ≥6 mm detected by the inexperienced readers with 3D Filet and/or 2D were combined to obtain 3D Filet + 2D. Results: Colonoscopy revealed 116 lesions: 16 lesions ≥10 mm, 19 lesions 6–9 mm, and 81 lesions ≤5 mm. For the experienced reader, sensitivities for lesions ≥6 mm with 3D Filet and 3D Filet + 2D were 77% and 83%, respectively. For the inexperienced readers, sensitivities for lesions ≥6 mm with 3D Filet and 2D were 51% and 57% (reader 2) and 40% and 43% (reader 3), respectively. There was no significant difference between 3D Filet and 2D regarding sensitivity and reading time. For lesions ≥6 mm, 3D Filet + 2D improved the sensitivity of reader 2 to 63% and of reader 3 to 51%. Conclusion: Lesion detection by inexperienced readers using perspective-filet view is comparable to that obtained by 2D. Lesion detection improves by combining 3D Filet + 2D, but not to the level of an experienced reader.
|
|
