4.7 Article

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

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 225, 期 3, 页码 685-692

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2253011376

关键词

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

资金

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据