4.7 Article

Lung cancer: Performance of automated lung nodule detection applied to cancers missed in a CT screening program

Journal

RADIOLOGY
Volume 225, Issue 3, Pages 685-692

Publisher

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2253011376

Keywords

cancer screening; computed tomography (CT), image processing; computers, diagnostic aid; lung neoplasms, CT

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA83908, CA64370, CA62525] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of a fully automated computerized method for the detection of lung nodules in computed tomographic (CT) scans in the identification of lung cancers that may be missed during visual interpretation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A database of 38 low-dose CT scans with 50 lung nodules was obtained from a lung cancer screening program. Thirty-eight of the nodules represented biopsy-confirmed lung cancers that had not been reported during initial clinical interpretation. A computer detection method that involved the use of gray-level thresholding techniques to identify three-dimensionally contiguous structures within the lungs was applied to the CT data. Computer-extracted volume was used to determine whether a structure became a nodule candidate. A rule-based scheme and a cascaded automated classifier were applied to the set of nodule candidates to distinguish actual nodes from areas of normal anatomy. Overall performance of the computer detection method was evaluated with free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) analysis. RESULTS: At a specific operating point on the FROC curve, the method achieved a sensitivity of 80% (40 of 50 nodules), with an average of 1.0 false-positive detection per section. Missed cancers were detected by the computerized method with a sensitivity of 84% (32 of 38 nodules) and a false-positive rate of 1.0 per section. CONCLUSION: With an automated lung nodule detection method, a large fraction (84%, 32 of 38) of missed cancers in a database of low-dose CT scans were detected correctly. (C) RSNA, 2002.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available