Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Nov;257(2):532-40.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.10092437. Epub 2010 Aug 31.

Computer-aided detection of lung cancer on chest radiographs: effect on observer performance

Bartjan de Hoop  1 , Diederik W De Boo, Hester A Gietema, Frans van Hoorn, Banafsche Mearadji, Laura Schijf, Bram van Ginneken, Mathias Prokop, Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop
Affiliations
Free article

Computer-aided detection of lung cancer on chest radiographs: effect on observer performance

Bartjan de Hoop et al. Radiology. 2010 Nov.
Free article

Abstract

Purpose: To assess how computer-aided detection (CAD) affects reader performance in detecting early lung cancer on chest radiographs.

Materials and methods: In this ethics committee-approved study, 46 individuals with 49 computed tomographically (CT)-detected and histologically proved lung cancers and 65 patients without nodules at CT were retrospectively included. All subjects participated in a lung cancer screening trial. Chest radiographs were obtained within 2 months after screening CT. Four radiology residents and two experienced radiologists were asked to identify and localize potential cancers on the chest radiographs, first without and subsequently with the use of CAD software. A figure of merit was calculated by using free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis.

Results: Tumor diameter ranged from 5.1 to 50.7 mm (median, 11.8 mm). Fifty-one percent (22 of 49) of lesions were subtle and detected by two or fewer readers. Stand-alone CAD sensitivity was 61%, with an average of 2.4 false-positive annotations per chest radiograph. Average sensitivity was 63% for radiologists at 0.23 false-positive annotations per chest radiograph and 49% for residents at 0.45 false-positive annotations per chest radiograph. Figure of merit did not change significantly for any of the observers after using CAD. CAD marked between five and 16 cancers that were initially missed by the readers. These correctly CAD-depicted lesions were rejected by radiologists in 92% of cases and by residents in 77% of cases.

Conclusion: The sensitivity of CAD in identifying lung cancers depicted with CT screening was similar to that of experienced radiologists. However, CAD did not improve cancer detection because, especially for subtle lesions, observers were unable to sufficiently differentiate true-positive from false-positive annotations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles