Performance of radiographers in the evaluation of CT colonographic images

被引:30
作者
Jensch, Sebastiaan
van Gelder, Rogier E.
Florie, Jasper
Thomassen-de Graaf, Marloes A.
Lobe, Jack V.
Bossuyt, Patrick M. M.
Bipat, Shandra
Nio, C. Yung
Stoker, Jaap
机构
[1] Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] Onze Lieve Vrouw Hosp, Dept Radiol, NL-1090 HM Amsterdam, Netherlands
[3] Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
abdominal imaging; cancer; colon; CT colonography; double reading; gastrointestinal radiology; radiographer; screening; second reader;
D O I
10.2214/AJR.06.0451
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of radiographers with that of radiologists in the interpretation of CT colonographic images. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Four observers ( a radiologist, a radiologist in training, and two radiographers) evaluated 145 data sets using a primary 3D approach. The radiographers were part of our CT colonography work group and underwent training that consisted of 20 cases. The reference standard was optical colonoscopy with second-look colonoscopy for discrepant lesions >= 10 mm in diameter. Mean sensitivities per patient and per polyp stratified for size ( any size, >= 6 mm, and >= 10 mm) was determined for the radiologists and radiographers. Specificity was determined on a per-patient basis. RESULTS. At colonoscopy in 86 of 145 patients, a total of 317 polyps were found ( 60 polyps >= 6 mm in 26 patients and 31 polyps >= 10 mm in 18 patients). No statistically significant differences were found in detection rates between radiologists and radiographers. Sensitivities for patients with a lesion of any size (66% for radiologists vs 65% for radiographers), >= 6 mm ( 81% vs 87%), and >= 10 mm ( both 78%) were similar for all observers. On a per-polyp basis, detection rates were equivalent regardless of polyp size (47% vs 40%), for lesions >= 6 mm (71% vs 65%), and for lesions >= 10 mm (69% vs 66%). Mean specificities were similar among patients without lesions (31% vs 30%), patients without lesions >= 6 mm ( 71% vs 67%), and patients without lesions >= 10 mm (93% vs 93%). CONCLUSION. Radiographers with training in CT colonographic evaluation achieved sensitivity and specificity in polyp detection comparable with that of radiologists. Radiographers can be considered reviewers in the evaluation of CT colonographic images.
引用
收藏
页码:W249 / W255
页数:7
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]   Nonradiologists as second readers for intraluminal findings at CT colonography [J].
Bodily, KD ;
Fletcher, JG ;
Engelby, T ;
Percival, M ;
Christensen, JA ;
Young, B ;
Krych, AJ ;
Kooi, DCV ;
Rodysill, D ;
Fidler, JL ;
Johnson, CD .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2005, 12 (01) :67-73
[2]   Computer-aided detection (CAD) for CT colonography: a tool to address a growing need [J].
Bogoni, L ;
Cathier, P ;
Dundar, M ;
Jerebko, A ;
Lakare, S ;
Liang, J ;
Periaswamy, S ;
Baker, ME ;
MacAri, M .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2005, 78 :S57-S62
[3]   CT colonography interpretation times: effect of reader experience, fatigue, and scan findings in a multi-centre setting [J].
Burling, David ;
Halligan, Steve ;
Altman, Douglas G. ;
Atkin, Wendy ;
Bartram, Clive ;
Fenlon, Helen ;
Laghi, Andrea ;
Stoker, Jaap ;
Taylor, Stuart ;
Frost, Roger ;
Dessey, Guido ;
De Villiers, Melinda ;
Florie, Jasper ;
Foley, Shane ;
Honeyfield, Lesley ;
Iannaccone, Riccardo ;
Gallo, Teresa ;
Kay, Clive ;
Lefere, Philippe ;
Lowe, Andrew ;
Mangiapane, Filipo ;
Marrannes, Jesse ;
Neri, Emmanuele ;
Nieddu, Giulia ;
Nicholson, David ;
O'Hare, Alan ;
Ori, Sante ;
Politi, Benedetta ;
Poulus, Martin ;
Regge, Daniele ;
Renaut, Lisa ;
Rudralingham, Velauthan ;
Signoretta, Saverio ;
Vagli, Paola ;
Van der Hulst, Victor ;
Williams-Butt, Jane .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2006, 16 (08) :1745-1749
[4]   CT colonography without cathartic preparation: Feasibility study [J].
Callstrom, MR ;
Johnson, CD ;
Fletcher, JG ;
Reed, JE ;
Ahlquist, DA ;
Harmsen, WS ;
Tait, K ;
Wilson, LA ;
Corcoran, KE .
RADIOLOGY, 2001, 219 (03) :693-698
[5]   Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy) - A multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia [J].
Cotton, PB ;
Durkalski, VL ;
Benoit, PC ;
Palesch, YY ;
Mauldin, PD ;
Hoffman, B ;
Vining, DJ ;
Small, WC ;
Affronti, J ;
Rex, D ;
Kopecky, KK ;
Ackerman, S ;
Burdick, JS ;
Brewington, C ;
Turner, MA ;
Zfass, A ;
Wright, AR ;
Iyer, RB ;
Lynch, P ;
Sivak, MV ;
Butler, H .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2004, 291 (14) :1713-1719
[6]   Double contrast barium enema sensitivity: A comparison of studies by radiographers and radiologists [J].
Culpan, DG ;
Mitchell, AJ ;
Hughes, S ;
Nutman, M ;
Chapman, AH .
CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2002, 57 (07) :604-607
[7]  
*ESGAR CT COL STUD, IN PRESS RADIOLOGY
[8]   A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps [J].
Fenlon, HM ;
Nunes, DP ;
Schroy, PC ;
Barish, MA ;
Clarke, PD ;
Ferrucci, JT .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1999, 341 (20) :1496-1503
[9]   Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps [J].
Iannaccone, R ;
Laghi, A ;
Catalano, C ;
Mangiapane, F ;
Lamazza, A ;
Schillaci, A ;
Sinibaldi, G ;
Murakami, T ;
Sammartino, P ;
Hori, M ;
Piacentini, F ;
Nofroni, I ;
Stipa, V ;
Passariello, R .
GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2004, 127 (05) :1300-1311
[10]   Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps [J].
Johnson, CD ;
Harmsen, WS ;
Wilson, LA ;
MacCarty, RL ;
Welch, TJ ;
Ilstrup, DM ;
Ahlquist, DA .
GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2003, 125 (02) :311-319