HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jensch, S. Articles by Stoker, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jensch, S. Articles by Stoker, J. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Performance of Radiographers in the Evaluation of CT Colonographic Images

¹ Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands.
² Department of Radiology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Oosterpark 9, 1090 HM Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
³ Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdrefef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of radiographers with that of radiologists in the interpretation of CT colonographic images.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Four observers (a radiologist, a radiologist in training, and two radiographers) evaluated 145 data sets using a primary 3D approach. The radiographers were part of our CT colonography work group and underwent training that consisted of 20 cases. The reference standard was optical colonoscopy with second-look colonoscopy for discrepant lesions 10 mm in diameter. Mean sensitivities per patient and per polyp stratified for size (any size, 6 mm, and 10 mm) was determined for the radiologists and radiographers. Specificity was determined on a per-patient basis.

RESULTS. At colonoscopy in 86 of 145 patients, a total of 317 polyps were found (60 polyps 6 mm in 26 patients and 31 polyps 10 mm in 18 patients). No statistically significant differences were found in detection rates between radiologists and radiographers. Sensitivities for patients with a lesion of any size (66% for radiologists vs 65% for radiographers), 6 mm (81% vs 87%), and 10 mm (both 78%) were similar for all observers. On a per-polyp basis, detection rates were equivalent regardless of polyp size (47% vs 40%), for lesions 6 mm (71% vs 65%), and for lesions 10 mm (69% vs 66%). Mean specificities were similar among patients without lesions (31% vs 30%), patients without lesions 6 mm (71% vs 67%), and patients without lesions 10 mm (93% vs 93%).

CONCLUSION. Radiographers with training in CT colonographic evaluation achieved sensitivity and specificity in polyp detection comparable with that of radiologists. Radiographers can be considered reviewers in the evaluation of CT colonographic images.

Keywords: abdominal imaging • cancer • colon • CT colonography • double reading • gastrointestinal radiology • radiographer • screening • second reader

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. H. Dachman, K. B. Kelly, M. P. Zintsmaster, R. Rana, S. Khankari, J. D. Novak, A. N. Ali, A. Qalbani, and J. G. Fletcher Formative Evaluation of Standardized Training for CT Colonographic Image Interpretation by Novice Readers Radiology, October 1, 2008; 249(1): 167 - 177. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Hock, R. Ouhadi, R. Materne, A.-S. Aouchria, I. Mancini, T. Broussaud, P. Magotteaux, and A. Nchimi Virtual Dissection CT Colonography: Evaluation of Learning Curves and Reading Times with and without Computer-aided Detection Radiology, September 1, 2008; 248(3): 860 - 868. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Jensch, A. H. de Vries, J. Peringa, S. Bipat, E. Dekker, L. C. Baak, J. F. Bartelsman, A. Heutinck, A. D. Montauban van Swijndregt, and J. Stoker CT Colonography with Limited Bowel Preparation: Performance Characteristics in an Increased-Risk Population Radiology, April 1, 2008; 247(1): 122 - 132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]