CT colonography: interpretative performance in a non-academic environment

Burling, David; Halligan, Steve; Atchley, J.; Dhingsar, R.; Guest, P; Hayward, Stephen; Higginson, Antony; Jobling, C.; Kay, Clive; Lilford, Richard; Maskell, Giles; McCafferty, Ian; McGregor, John M.; Morton, Dion; Neelala, M.K.; Noakes, M.; Philips, A.; Riley, Peter; Taylor, Andrew; Bassett, Paul; Wardle, Jane; Atkin, Wendy; Taylor, Stuart A.

doi:10.1016/j.crad.2006.11.004

Cited by 35 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Suboptimal technical parameters may in part explain poor performance, but much attention has focused on the influence of reader experience on accuracy [10,11]. As expected, there is a clear learning curve associated with interpretation of CTC [12], and recent data confirms superior performance characteristics in expert hands [13,14]. Reader training is therefore now generally considered mandatory [15], and appropriate guidelines have been provided by expert consensus [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Reader error during CT colonography: causes and implications for training

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the variability in baseline computed tomography colonography (CTC) performance using untrained readers by documenting sources of error to guide future training requirements. Twenty CTC endoscopically validated data sets containing 32 polyps were consensus read by three unblinded radiologists experienced in CTC, creating a reference standard. Six readers without prior CTC training [four residents and two board-certified subspecialty gastrointestinal (GI) radiologists] read the 20 cases. Readers drew a region of interest (ROI) around every area they considered a potential colonic lesion, even if subsequently dismissed, before creating a final report. Using this final report, reader ROIs were classified as true positive detections, true negatives correctly dismissed, true detections incorrectly dismissed (i.e., classification error), or perceptual errors. Detection of polyps 1-5 mm, 6-9 mm, and > or =10 mm ranged from 7.1% to 28.6%, 16.7% to 41.7%, and 16.7% to 83.3%, respectively. There was no significant difference between polyp detection or false positives for the GI radiologists compared with residents (p=0.67, p=0.4 respectively). Most missed polyps were due to failure of detection rather than characterization (range 82-95%). Untrained reader performance is variable but generally poor. Most missed polyps are due perceptual error rather than characterization, suggesting basic training should focus heavily on lesion detection.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Reader error during CT colonography: causes and implications for training

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reader experience and training are recognized as important factors in achieving acceptable diagnostic accuracy (3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10). Therefore, several investigators have attempted to evaluate the learning curve for CT colonographic data interpretation and determine whether general radiologists or even nonradiologists can be trained to read CT colonographic data (3,5,6,(11)(12)(13). Results have been variable, with one consistent conclusion: There is marked variation in individual performance, even after training (5).…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Formative Evaluation of Standardized Training for CT Colonographic Image Interpretation by Novice Readers

Dachman¹,

Kelly²,

Zintsmaster³

et al. 2008

Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Currently, in the UK, at least a one-third of all imaging departments have experience using CTC, and capacity is steadily increasing [16]. It is accepted that accurate interpretation is time consuming, requiring a high level of expertise, but that in skilled hands, CTC has a sensitivity and a specificity approaching those of optical colonoscopy [17,18].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%