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 Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lee, M. W. Articles by Choi, B. I. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lee, M. W. Articles by Choi, B. I. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

An Anthropomorphic Phantom Study of Computer-Aided Detection Performance for Polyp Detection on CT Colonography: A Comparison of Commercially and Academically Available Systems

¹ Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
² Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehangno, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-744, South Korea.
³ Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
⁴ Department of Radiology, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Konkuk University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
⁵ Interdisciplinary Program in Radiation Applied Life Science, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to compare the diagnostic performances of two commercial computer-aided detection (CAD) systems and a CAD system developed in our laboratory, which we refer to as an "academic CAD system," for polyp detection on CT colonography (CTC) and to assess the detection characteristics of the CAD systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. One hundred three polyps (48 polyps < 6 mm and 55 polyps 6 mm; 45 sessile, 33 flat, and 25 pedunculated polyps) were created. Each CTC data set was analyzed using two commercial CAD systems (Computer Assisted Reader [CAR] and Polyp Enhanced View [PEV]) and one Hessian matrix–based academic CAD system. Per-polyp sensitivities according to polyp size and shape were compared among the three CAD systems. The average number and causes of false-positives (FPs) were analyzed and compared.

RESULTS. Per-polyp sensitivity for all polyps was significantly better for the academic CAD system (83.5%) than for both commercial CAD systems (64.1%) (p < 0.01). However, the difference in per-polyp sensitivity for polyps 6 mm was not significant (p > 0.017). According to morphology, per-polyp sensitivities as determined with the CAR, PEV, and academic CAD systems for flat, sessile, and pedunculated polyps were 51.5%, 57.6%, and 81.8%; 60.0%, 62.2%, and 84.4%; 88.0%, 76.0%, and 84.0%, respectively. The average number of FPs was not significantly different (p > 0.05); however, the distribution of the causes of FPs for the three systems was significantly different (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION. For polyps 6 mm, the three CAD systems showed comparable perpolyp sensitivities. Although the number of FPs was not significantly different, the distribution of the causes of FPs for each of the CAD systems was significantly different.

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