Comparative performance of two polyp detection systems on CT colonography

Joel Garland Fletcher, Fargol Booya, Ronald M. Summers, David Roy, Lutz Guendel, Bernhard Schmidt, Cynthia H McCollough, Jeff L. Fidler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to evaluate two current automatic polyp detection systems to determine their sensitivity and false-positive rate in patients who have undergone CT colonography and subsequent endoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We evaluated two polyp detection systems - Polyp Enhanced Viewing (PEV) and the Summers computer-aided detection (CAD) system (National Institutes of Health [NIH]) using a unique cohort of CT colonography examinations: 31 examinations with true-positive lesions identified by radiologists and 34 examinations with false-positive lesions incorrectly identified by radiologists. All patients had reference-standard colonoscopy within 7 days of CT. Candidate lesions were compared with the endoscopic reference standard and prospective radiologist interpretation. The sensitivity and false-positive rates were calculated for each system. RESULTS. The NIH system had a higher sensitivity than the PEV tool for polyps ≥ 1 cm (22/23, 96%; 78-99%, 95% CI vs 14/23, 61%; 38-81%, 95% CI; p = 0.008, respectively). There was no significant difference in the detection of medium-sized polyps 6-9 mm in size (8/13 vs 6/13, p = 0.68, respectively). The PEV tool had an average of 1.18 false-positive detections per patient, whereas the NIH tool had an average of 5.20 false-positive detections per patient, with the PEV tool having significantly fewer false-positive detections in both patient groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION. One polyp detection system tended to operate with a higher sensitivity, whereas the other tended to operate with a lower false-positive rate. Prospective trials using polyp detection systems as a primary or secondary means of CT colonography interpretation appear warranted.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)277-282
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Journal of Roentgenology
Volume189
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2007

Fingerprint

Computed Tomographic Colonography
Polyps
National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
Colonoscopy
Endoscopy

Keywords

  • Computer-aided detection
  • CT colonography
  • Polyp detection

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Fletcher, J. G., Booya, F., Summers, R. M., Roy, D., Guendel, L., Schmidt, B., ... Fidler, J. L. (2007). Comparative performance of two polyp detection systems on CT colonography. American Journal of Roentgenology, 189(2), 277-282. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2289

Comparative performance of two polyp detection systems on CT colonography. / Fletcher, Joel Garland; Booya, Fargol; Summers, Ronald M.; Roy, David; Guendel, Lutz; Schmidt, Bernhard; McCollough, Cynthia H; Fidler, Jeff L.

In: American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 189, No. 2, 08.2007, p. 277-282.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fletcher, Joel Garland ; Booya, Fargol ; Summers, Ronald M. ; Roy, David ; Guendel, Lutz ; Schmidt, Bernhard ; McCollough, Cynthia H ; Fidler, Jeff L. / Comparative performance of two polyp detection systems on CT colonography. In: American Journal of Roentgenology. 2007 ; Vol. 189, No. 2. pp. 277-282.
@article{631b192feb5a43bb83a897ed4117a0e9,
title = "Comparative performance of two polyp detection systems on CT colonography",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to evaluate two current automatic polyp detection systems to determine their sensitivity and false-positive rate in patients who have undergone CT colonography and subsequent endoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We evaluated two polyp detection systems - Polyp Enhanced Viewing (PEV) and the Summers computer-aided detection (CAD) system (National Institutes of Health [NIH]) using a unique cohort of CT colonography examinations: 31 examinations with true-positive lesions identified by radiologists and 34 examinations with false-positive lesions incorrectly identified by radiologists. All patients had reference-standard colonoscopy within 7 days of CT. Candidate lesions were compared with the endoscopic reference standard and prospective radiologist interpretation. The sensitivity and false-positive rates were calculated for each system. RESULTS. The NIH system had a higher sensitivity than the PEV tool for polyps ≥ 1 cm (22/23, 96{\%}; 78-99{\%}, 95{\%} CI vs 14/23, 61{\%}; 38-81{\%}, 95{\%} CI; p = 0.008, respectively). There was no significant difference in the detection of medium-sized polyps 6-9 mm in size (8/13 vs 6/13, p = 0.68, respectively). The PEV tool had an average of 1.18 false-positive detections per patient, whereas the NIH tool had an average of 5.20 false-positive detections per patient, with the PEV tool having significantly fewer false-positive detections in both patient groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION. One polyp detection system tended to operate with a higher sensitivity, whereas the other tended to operate with a lower false-positive rate. Prospective trials using polyp detection systems as a primary or secondary means of CT colonography interpretation appear warranted.",
keywords = "Computer-aided detection, CT colonography, Polyp detection",
author = "Fletcher, {Joel Garland} and Fargol Booya and Summers, {Ronald M.} and David Roy and Lutz Guendel and Bernhard Schmidt and McCollough, {Cynthia H} and Fidler, {Jeff L.}",
year = "2007",
month = "8",
doi = "10.2214/AJR.07.2289",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "189",
pages = "277--282",
journal = "American Journal of Roentgenology",
issn = "0361-803X",
publisher = "American Roentgen Ray Society",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative performance of two polyp detection systems on CT colonography

AU - Fletcher, Joel Garland

AU - Booya, Fargol

AU - Summers, Ronald M.

AU - Roy, David

AU - Guendel, Lutz

AU - Schmidt, Bernhard

AU - McCollough, Cynthia H

AU - Fidler, Jeff L.

PY - 2007/8

Y1 - 2007/8

N2 - OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to evaluate two current automatic polyp detection systems to determine their sensitivity and false-positive rate in patients who have undergone CT colonography and subsequent endoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We evaluated two polyp detection systems - Polyp Enhanced Viewing (PEV) and the Summers computer-aided detection (CAD) system (National Institutes of Health [NIH]) using a unique cohort of CT colonography examinations: 31 examinations with true-positive lesions identified by radiologists and 34 examinations with false-positive lesions incorrectly identified by radiologists. All patients had reference-standard colonoscopy within 7 days of CT. Candidate lesions were compared with the endoscopic reference standard and prospective radiologist interpretation. The sensitivity and false-positive rates were calculated for each system. RESULTS. The NIH system had a higher sensitivity than the PEV tool for polyps ≥ 1 cm (22/23, 96%; 78-99%, 95% CI vs 14/23, 61%; 38-81%, 95% CI; p = 0.008, respectively). There was no significant difference in the detection of medium-sized polyps 6-9 mm in size (8/13 vs 6/13, p = 0.68, respectively). The PEV tool had an average of 1.18 false-positive detections per patient, whereas the NIH tool had an average of 5.20 false-positive detections per patient, with the PEV tool having significantly fewer false-positive detections in both patient groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION. One polyp detection system tended to operate with a higher sensitivity, whereas the other tended to operate with a lower false-positive rate. Prospective trials using polyp detection systems as a primary or secondary means of CT colonography interpretation appear warranted.

AB - OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to evaluate two current automatic polyp detection systems to determine their sensitivity and false-positive rate in patients who have undergone CT colonography and subsequent endoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We evaluated two polyp detection systems - Polyp Enhanced Viewing (PEV) and the Summers computer-aided detection (CAD) system (National Institutes of Health [NIH]) using a unique cohort of CT colonography examinations: 31 examinations with true-positive lesions identified by radiologists and 34 examinations with false-positive lesions incorrectly identified by radiologists. All patients had reference-standard colonoscopy within 7 days of CT. Candidate lesions were compared with the endoscopic reference standard and prospective radiologist interpretation. The sensitivity and false-positive rates were calculated for each system. RESULTS. The NIH system had a higher sensitivity than the PEV tool for polyps ≥ 1 cm (22/23, 96%; 78-99%, 95% CI vs 14/23, 61%; 38-81%, 95% CI; p = 0.008, respectively). There was no significant difference in the detection of medium-sized polyps 6-9 mm in size (8/13 vs 6/13, p = 0.68, respectively). The PEV tool had an average of 1.18 false-positive detections per patient, whereas the NIH tool had an average of 5.20 false-positive detections per patient, with the PEV tool having significantly fewer false-positive detections in both patient groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION. One polyp detection system tended to operate with a higher sensitivity, whereas the other tended to operate with a lower false-positive rate. Prospective trials using polyp detection systems as a primary or secondary means of CT colonography interpretation appear warranted.

KW - Computer-aided detection

KW - CT colonography

KW - Polyp detection

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34547580099&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34547580099&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2214/AJR.07.2289

DO - 10.2214/AJR.07.2289

M3 - Article

VL - 189

SP - 277

EP - 282

JO - American Journal of Roentgenology

JF - American Journal of Roentgenology

SN - 0361-803X

IS - 2

ER -