AJR ARRS: Your Link to CME
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Yuan, R.
Right arrow Articles by Cooperberg, P. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Yuan, R.
Right arrow Articles by Cooperberg, P. L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.04.1969
AJR 2006; 186:1280-1287
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Original Research

Computer-Aided Detection in Screening CT for Pulmonary Nodules

Ren Yuan1, Patrick M. Vos2 and Peter L. Cooperberg2

1 Department of Radiology, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, V5Z 1M9 Canada.
2 Department of Radiology, St. Paul's Hospital, 1081 Burrard St., Vancouver, British Columbia, V6Z 1Y6 Canada.

OBJECTIVE. Our objective was to evaluate the performance of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system for pulmonary nodule detection using low-dose screening CT images.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. One hundred fifty consecutive low-dose screening CT examinations were independently evaluated by a radiologist and a CAD pulmonary nodule detection system (R2 Technology) designed to identify nodules larger than 4 mm in maximum long-axis diameter. All discrepancies between the two techniques were reviewed by one of another two radiologists working in consensus with the initial interpreting radiologist, and a "true" nodule count was determined. Detected nodules were classified by size, density, and location. The performance of the initial radiologist and the CAD system were compared.

RESULTS. The radiologist detected 518 nodules and the CAD system, 934 nodules. Of the 1,106 separate nodules detected using the two techniques, 628 were classified as true nodules on consensus review. Of the true nodules present, the radiologist detected 518 (82%) of 628 nodules and the CAD, 456 (73%) of 628 nodules. All 518 radiologist-detected nodules were true nodules, and 456 (49%) of 934 of CAD-detected nodules were true nodules. The radiologist missed 110 true nodules that were only detected by CAD. In six patients, these were the only nodules detected in the examination, changing the imaging follow-up protocol. CAD identified 478 lesions that on consensus review were false-positive nodules, a rate of 3.19 (478/150) per patient.

CONCLUSION. CAD detected 72.6% of true nodules and detected nodules in six (4%) patients not identified by radiologists, changing the imaging follow-up protocol of these subjects. In this study, the combined review of low-dose CT scans by both the radiologist and CAD was necessary to identify all nodules.

Keywords: computer-aided detection • CT • low-dose CT • lung cancer • pulmonary nodules


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
F. Girvin and J. P. Ko
Pulmonary Nodules: Detection, Assessment, and CAD
Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2008; 191(4): 1057 - 1069.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
C. Beigelman-Aubry, P. Raffy, W. Yang, R. A. Castellino, and P. A. Grenier
Computer-Aided Detection of Solid Lung Nodules on Follow-Up MDCT Screening: Evaluation of Detection, Tracking, and Reading Time
Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2007; 189(4): 948 - 955.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
F. J. Parrish
Volume CT: State-of-the-Art Reporting
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2007; 189(3): 528 - 534.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.