Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Jan;200(1):74-83. doi: 10.2214/AJR.11.7532.

Benefit of computer-aided detection analysis for the detection of subsolid and solid lung nodules on thin- and thick-section CT.

Author information

  • 1Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, 560 First Ave, IRM 236, New York, NY 10016, USA.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The objective of our study was to evaluate the impact of computer-aided detection (CAD) on the identification of subsolid and solid lung nodules on thin- and thick-section CT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

For 46 chest CT examinations with ground-glass opacity (GGO) nodules, CAD marks computed using thin data were evaluated in two phases. First, four chest radiologists reviewed thin sections (reader(thin)) for nodules and subsequently CAD marks (reader(thin) + CAD(thin)). After 4 months, the same cases were reviewed on thick sections (reader(thick)) and subsequently with CAD marks (reader(thick) + CAD(thick)). Sensitivities were evaluated. Additionally, reader(thick) sensitivity with assessment of CAD marks on thin sections was estimated (reader(thick) + CAD(thin)).

RESULTS:

For 155 nodules (mean, 5.5 mm; range, 4.0-27.5 mm)-74 solid nodules, 22 part-solid (part-solid nodules), and 59 GGO nodules-CAD stand-alone sensitivity was 80%, 95%, and 71%, respectively, with three false-positives on average (0-12) per CT study. Reader(thin) + CAD(thin) sensitivities were higher than reader(thin) for solid nodules (82% vs 57%, p < 0.001), part-solid nodules (97% vs 81%, p = 0.0027), and GGO nodules (82% vs 69%, p < 0.001) for all readers (p < 0.001). Respective sensitivities for reader(thick), reader(thick) + CAD(thick), reader(thick) + CAD(thin) were 40%, 58% (p < 0.001), and 77% (p < 0.001) for solid nodules; 72%, 73% (p = 0.322), and 94% (p < 0.001) for part-solid nodules; and 53%, 58% (p = 0.008), and 79% (p < 0.001) for GGO nodules. For reader(thin), false-positives increased from 0.64 per case to 0.90 with CAD(thin) (p < 0.001) but not for reader(thick); false-positive rates were 1.17, 1.19, and 1.26 per case for reader(thick), reader(thick) + CAD(thick), and reader(thick) + CAD(thin), respectively.

CONCLUSION:

Detection of GGO nodules and solid nodules is significantly improved with CAD. When interpretation is performed on thick sections, the benefit is greater when CAD marks are reviewed on thin rather than thick sections.

PMID:
23255744
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Icon for Atypon
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk