Fisichella V A, Jäderling F, Horvath S, Stotzer P-O, Kilander A, Båth M, Hellström M
Department of Radiology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital and Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Clin Radiol. 2009 Oct;64(10):972-82. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2009.05.012. Epub 2009 Aug 13.
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.
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.
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).
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.
评估与无辅助的三维(3D)鱼网视图及无辅助的二维(2D)计算机断层结肠成像(CTC)相比,使用透视鱼网视图(3D鱼网)作为第二阅片者的计算机辅助检测(CAD)是否能提高经验不足的阅片者在CTC中的表现。
50例有症状的患者接受了CTC检查及同日的结肠镜检查,并进行了分段非盲法检查。两名经验不足的阅片者在相隔数周的时间里分别阅读了3D鱼网视图及2D的CTC检查图像。四个月后,阅片者仅使用3D鱼网视图重新阅读病例,评估CAD标记。记录3D鱼网视图上之前未描述的可疑CAD标记。采用刀切自由响应接收器操作特性(JAFROC-1)分析来比较阅片者在使用3D鱼网视图、2D及带CAD的3D鱼网视图检测病变时的表现。
在分段非盲法结肠镜检查中检测到103个直径≥3mm的病变。仅CAD的敏感性为73%(75/103),仰卧位时每位患者的平均假阳性率为12.8,俯卧位时为11.4。对于经验不足的阅片者,带CAD的3D鱼网视图的敏感性分别为58%(60/103)和48%(50/103),与2D相比提高了14 - 16个百分点(p<0.05),与3D鱼网视图相比提高了10 - 11个百分点(p<0.05)。对于经验不足的阅片者,带CAD的3D鱼网视图的假阳性率分别比3D鱼网视图和2D高25 - 41%和71 - 200%。JAFROC-1分析显示各阅读模式下每个病变的总体表现无显著差异(p = 0.8)。
与3D鱼网视图和2D相比,使用3D鱼网视图作为第二阅片者应用CAD增加了经验不足的阅片者的敏感性和假阳性数量,因此并未提高总体表现,即区分病变与非病变的能力。