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 Fletcher, J. G. Articles by Fidler, J. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Fletcher, J. G. Articles by Fidler, J. L. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Comparative Performance of Two Polyp Detection Systems on CT Colonography

¹ Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905.
² Department of Radiology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
³ Siemens Medical Solutions, Forchheim, Germany.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to evaluate two current automatic polyp detection systems to determine their sensitivity and false-positive rate in patients who have undergone CT colonography and subsequent endoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. We evaluated two polyp detection systems—Polyp Enhanced Viewing (PEV) and the Summers computer-aided detection (CAD) system (National Institutes of Health [NIH]) using a unique cohort of CT colonography examinations: 31 examinations with true-positive lesions identified by radiologists and 34 examinations with false-positive lesions incorrectly identified by radiologists. All patients had reference-standard colonoscopy within 7 days of CT. Candidate lesions were compared with the endoscopic reference standard and prospective radiologist interpretation. The sensitivity and false-positive rates were calculated for each system.

RESULTS. The NIH system had a higher sensitivity than the PEV tool for polyps 1 cm (22/23, 96%; 78-99%, 95% CI vs 14/23, 61%; 38-81%, 95% CI; p = 0.008, respectively). There was no significant difference in the detection of medium-sized polyps 6-9 mm in size (8/13 vs 6/13, p = 0.68, respectively). The PEV tool had an average of 1.18 false-positive detections per patient, whereas the NIH tool had an average of 5.20 false-positive detections per patient, with the PEV tool having significantly fewer false-positive detections in both patient groups (p <0.001).

CONCLUSION. One polyp detection system tended to operate with a higher sensitivity, whereas the other tended to operate with a lower false-positive rate. Prospective trials using polyp detection systems as a primary or secondary means of CT colonography interpretation appear warranted.

Keywords: computer-aided detection • CT colonography • polyp detection

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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. M. Summers, L. R. Handwerker, P. J. Pickhardt, R. L. Van Uitert, K. K. Deshpande, S. Yeshwant, J. Yao, and M. Franaszek Performance of a Previously Validated CT Colonography Computer-Aided Detection System in a New Patient Population Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2008; 191(1): 168 - 174. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. D. Johnson, J. G. Fletcher, R. L. MacCarty, J. N. Mandrekar, W. S. Harmsen, P. J. Limburg, and L. A. Wilson Effect of Slice Thickness and Primary 2D Versus 3D Virtual Dissection on Colorectal Lesion Detection at CT Colonography in 452 Asymptomatic Adults Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2007; 189(3): 672 - 680. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]