4.4 Article

Computer-assisted detection for CT colonography: external validation

Journal

CLINICAL RADIOLOGY
Volume 61, Issue 9, Pages 758-763

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2006.02.015

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: To externally validate a computer-assisted detection (CAD) system for computed tomography (CT) colonography, using data from a single centre uninvolved with the software development . MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five multi-detector CT colonography examinations of patients with validated polyps accumulated at a single centre were examined by two readers who used endoscopic and histopathological data to identify polyp coordinates. A CAD system that had been developed using data from elsewhere, and had not previously encountered the present data, was then applied to the data at sphericity filter settings of 0.75 and 0.50 and identified potential polyps. True-positive, false-negative, and false-positive counts were determined by comparison with the known polyp coordinates. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients had 57 polyps, median size 6 mm (range 1-15 mm). Per-patient sensitivity for the CAD system was 96% (24 of 25). The CAD system detected 44 (77%) polyps at sphericity setting 0.75 and 49 (86%) polyps at sphericity 0.50: the additional five polyps detected all measured 5 mm or less. Sphericity of 0.75 resulted in a median of 10 (one to 34) easily dismissed false-positive prompts per patient and a median of 4 (zero to 15) that needed three-dimensional rendering before dismissal. This rose to 32 (16 to 99) and 11 (three to 35), respectively, at sphericity 0.5. CONCLUSIONS: A per-patient sensitivity of 96% was found for the CAD system (in patients with a median polyp diameter of 6 mm) using external validation, a more stringent test than either internal cross-validation or temporal validation. Decreasing sphericity increases sensitivity for small polyps at the expense of decreased specificity. (C) 2006 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available