Biomedical subjects

Lesley Honeyfield

Publications and source records attributed to Lesley Honeyfield.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

CT colonography: automated measurement of colonic polyps compared with manual techniques--human in vitro study.

PURPOSE: To prospectively investigate the relative accuracy and reproducibility of manual and automated computer software measurements by using polyps of known size in a human colectomy specimen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained for the study; written consent for use of the surgical specimen was obtained. A colectomy specimen containing 27 polyps from a 16-year-old male patient with familial adenomatous polyposis was insufflated, submerged in a container with solution, and scanned at four-section multi-detector row computed tomography (CT). A histopathologist measured the maximum dimension of all polyps in the opened specimen. Digital photographs and line drawings were produced to aid CT-histologic measurement correlation. A novice (radiographic technician) and an experienced (radiologist) observer independently estimated polyp diameter with three methods: manual two-dimensional (2D) and manual three-dimensional (3D) measurement with software calipers and automated measurement with software (automatic). Data were analyzed with paired t tests and Bland-Altman limits of agreement. RESULTS: Seven polyps (<or=6-mm diameter) could not be extracted by using the software; 20 polyps (5-15-mm diameter) remained for analysis. Automated measurement was not significantly different from histologic size for the experienced reader (mean difference, 0.63 mm; P=.06) or novice reader (mean difference, 0.58 mm; P=.12). With manual 2D measurement and manual 3D measurement, the experienced reader (1.21-mm mean difference, P<.001, and 0.68-mm mean difference, P=.03, respectively) and novice reader (1.54-mm mean difference, P<.001, and 0.84-mm mean difference, P=.002, respectively) significantly underestimated polyp size. Interobserver agreement was good and similar for all three methods (95% limits of agreement span, approximately 2.5 mm). Intraobserver agreement was related to reader experience, with differences of up to 2.5 mm within expected limits of agreement. CONCLUSION: For polyps smaller than 1 cm, measurement differences of up to 2.5 mm are within the expected limits of inter- and intraobserver agreement for all measurement techniques. Automated and manual 3D polyp measurements are more accurate than manual 2D measurements.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2006

Computer assisted detection software for CT colonography: effect of sphericity filter on performance characteristics for patients with and without fecal tagging.

The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of changing sphericity filter values on performance of a computer assisted detection (CAD) system for CT colonography for data with and without fecal tagging. Colonography data from 138 patients with 317 validated polyps were divided into those with (86) and without (52) fecal tagging. Polyp coordinates were established by three observers and datasets analysed subsequently by a proprietary CAD system used at four discrete sphericity filter settings. Prompts were compared with the known coordinates in order to determine sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity was highest at low sphericity; of 164 polyps 6 mm or more, 144 (87.8%) were detected at sphericity 0.3, and 132 (80.1%) at sphericity 0.9. Of 42 polyps measuring 10 mm or more, 40 (95.2%) were detected at sphericity 0.3, and 36 (85.7%) at sphericity 0.9. There was no significant difference in sensitivity for tagged and un-tagged data but specificity was reduced in tagged data at low sphericity and significantly reduced in untagged data at high sphericity. CAD had a sensitivity of 95.2% for polyps measuring 1 cm or more and 87.8% for polyps 6 mm or more when used at a sphericity setting of 0.3. Higher sphericity settings increased specificity while reducing sensitivity. The bowel preparation used significantly impacts on specificity.

Barium Sulfate↗

PubMed2006

Computed tomographic colonography: assessment of radiologist performance with and without computer-aided detection.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In isolation, computer-aided detection (CAD) for computed tomographic (CT) colonography is as effective as optical colonoscopy for detection of significant adenomas. However, the unavoidable interaction between CAD and the reader has not been addressed. METHODS: Ten readers trained in CT but without special expertise in colonography interpreted CT colonography images of 107 patients (60 with 142 polyps), first without CAD and then with CAD after temporal separation of 2 months. Per-patient and per-polyp detection were determined by comparing responses with known patient status. RESULTS: With CAD, 41 (68%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-80%) of the 60 patients with polyps were identified more frequently by readers. Per-patient sensitivity increased significantly in 70% of readers, while specificity dropped significantly in only one. Polyp detection increased significantly with CAD; on average, 12 more polyps were detected by each reader (9.1%, 95% CI, 5.2%-12.8%). Small- (< or =5 mm) and medium-sized (6-9 mm) polyps were significantly more likely to be detected when prompted correctly by CAD. However, overall performance was relatively poor; even with CAD, on average readers detected only 10 polyps (51.0%) > or =10 mm and 24 (38.2%) > or =6 mm. Interpretation time was shortened significantly with CAD: by 1.9 minutes (95% CI, 1.4-2.4 minutes) for patients with polyps and by 2.9 minutes (95% CI, 2.5-3.3 minutes) for patients without. Overall, 9 readers (90%) benefited significantly from CAD, either by increased sensitivity and/or by reduced interpretation time. CONCLUSIONS: CAD for CT colonography significantly increases per-patient and per-polyp detection and significantly reduces interpretation times but cannot substitute for adequate training.

Adenoma↗

PubMed2006

Polyp measurement and size categorisation by CT colonography: effect of observer experience in a multi-centre setting.

The extent measurement error on CT colonography influences polyp categorisation according to established management guidelines is studied using twenty-eight observers of varying experience to classify polyps seen at CT colonography as either 'medium' (maximal diameter 6-9 mm) or 'large' (maximal diameter 10 mm or larger). Comparison was then made with the reference diameter obtained in each patient via colonoscopy. The Bland-Altman method was used to assess agreement between observer measurements and colonoscopy, and differences in measurement and categorisation was assessed using Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-squared test statistics respectively. Observer measurements on average underestimated the diameter of polyps when compared to the reference value, by approximately 2-3 mm, irrespective of observer experience. Ninety-five percent limits of agreement were relatively wide for all observer groups, and had sufficient span to encompass different size categories for polyps. There were 167 polyp observations and 135 (81%) were correctly categorised. Of the 32 observations that were miscategorised, 5 (16%) were overestimations and 27 (84%) were underestimations (i.e. large polyps misclassified as medium). Caution should be exercised for polyps whose colonographic diameter is below but close to the 1-cm boundary threshold in order to avoid potential miscategorisation of advanced adenomas.

Chi-Square Distribution↗

PubMed2006

CT colonography interpretation times: effect of reader experience, fatigue, and scan findings in a multi-centre setting.

Our purpose was to assess the effect of reader experience, fatigue, and scan findings on interpretation time for CT colonography. Nine radiologists (experienced in CT colonography); nine radiologists and ten technicians (both groups trained using 50 validated examinations) read 40 cases (50% abnormal) under controlled conditions. Individual interpretation times for each case were recorded, and differences between groups determined. Multi-level linear regression was used to investigate effect of scan category (normal or abnormal) and observer fatigue on interpretation times. Experienced radiologists (mean time 10.9 min, SD 5.2) reported significantly faster than less experienced radiologists and technicians; odds ratios of reporting times 1.4 (CI 1.1, 1.8) and 1.6 (1.3, 2.0), respectively (P<or=0.001). Experienced and less-experienced radiologists took longer to report abnormal cases; ratio 1.2 (CI 1.1,1.4, P<0.001) and 1.2 (1.0, 1.3, P=0.03), respectively. All groups took 70% as long to report the final five cases as they did with an initial five; ratio 0.7 (CI 0.6 to 0.8), P<0.001. For technicians only, accuracy increased with longer reporting times (P=0.04). Experienced radiologists report faster than do less-experienced observers and proportionally spend less time interpreting normal cases. Technicians who report more slowly are more accurate. All groups reported faster as the study period progressed.

Clinical Competence↗

PubMed2006

Computer-assisted reader software versus expert reviewers for polyp detection on CT colonography.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to assess the sensitivity of computer-assisted reader (CAR) software for polyp detection compared with the performance of expert reviewers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A library of colonoscopically validated CT colonography cases were collated and separated into training and test sets according to the time of accrual. Training data sets were annotated in consensus by three expert radiologists who were aware of the colonoscopy report. A subset of 45 training cases containing 100 polyps underwent batch analysis using ColonCAR version 1.2 software to determine the optimum polyp enhancement filter settings for polyp detection. Twenty-five consecutive positive test data sets were subsequently interpreted individually by each expert, who was unaware of the endoscopy report, and before generation of the annotated reference via an unblinded consensus interpretation. ColonCAR version 1.2 software was applied to the test cases, at optimized polyp enhancement filter settings, to determine diagnostic performance. False-positive findings were classified according to importance. RESULTS: The 25 test cases contained 32 nondiminutive polyps ranging from 6 to 35 mm in diameter. The ColonCAR version 1.2 software identified 26 (81%) of 32 polyps compared with an average sensitivity of 70% for the expert reviewers. Eleven (92%) of 12 polyps > or = 10 mm were detected by ColonCAR version 1.2. All polyps missed by experts 1 (n = 4) and 2 (n = 3) and 12 (86%) of 14 polyps missed by expert 3 were detected by ColonCAR version 1.2. The median number of false-positive highlights per case was 13, of which 91% were easily dismissed. CONCLUSION: ColonCAR version 1.2 is sensitive for polyp detection, with a clinically acceptable false-positive rate. ColonCAR version 1.2 has a synergistic effect to the reviewer alone, and its standalone performance may exceed even that of experts.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Computed tomography colonography: automated diameter and volume measurement of colonic polyps compared with a manual technique--in vitro study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate inter- and intraobserver agreement of automated measurement of polyp diameter in vitro. METHODS: Two phantoms ("QRM" and "Whiting") containing simulated polyps of known diameter and volume were scanned using 16-detector row computed tomography. Two observers estimated polyp diameter using 3 methods: software calipers ("manual"), freehand boundary identification ("semiautomatic"), and automated software segmentation ("fully automatic"). RESULTS: Intraobserver 95% limits of agreement for diameter were narrowest for the fully automatic method (QRM span: 0.39 mm, 0.48 mm; Whiting span: 0.24 mm, 0 mm). Manual estimates were approximately 10 times wider (QRM span: 3.57 mm, 3.21 mm; Whiting span: 3.2 mm, 2.02 mm). Volume estimates were narrowest for the fully automatic method (span: 24.2 mm, 24.1 mm vs. 97.9 mm, 102.9 mm for semiautomatic measurement). Interobserver agreement for diameter was narrowest for the fully automatic method (QRM span: 0.12 mm, Whiting span: 0.16 mm), with the manual method approximately 18 times wider (QRM span: 2.87 mm, Whiting span: 2.18 mm). CONCLUSION: Fully automated measurement of polyp diameter and volume is technically feasible and results in superior inter- and intraobserver agreement.

Colonic Polyps↗