CT colonography: effect of experience and training on reader performance
- 166 Downloads
The purpose of this paper was to investigate the effect of radiologist experience and increasing exposure to CT colonography on reader performance. Three radiologists of differing general experience (consultant, research fellow, trainee) independently analysed 100 CT colonographic datasets. Readers had no prior experience of CT colonography and received feedback and training after the first 50 cases from an independent experienced radiologist. Diagnostic performance and reporting times were compared for the first and second 50 datasets and compared with the results of a radiologist experienced in CT colonography. Before training only the consultant reader achieved statistical equivalence with the reference standard for detection of larger polyps. After training, detection rates ranged between 25 and 58% for larger polyps. Only the trainee significantly improved after training (P=0.007), with performance of other readers unchanged or even worse. Reporting times following training were reduced significantly for the consultant and fellow (P<0.001 and P=0.03, respectively), but increased for the trainee (P<0.001). In comparison to the consultant reader, the odds of detection of larger polyps was 0.36 (CI 0.16, 0.82) for the fellow and 0.36 (CI 0.14, 0.91) for the trainee. There is considerable variation in the ability to report CT colonography. Prior experience in gastrointestinal radiology is a distinct advantage. Competence cannot be assumed even after directed training via a database of 50 cases.
KeywordsColonography Computed tomographic/standards Clinical competence/standards Learning Radiology/education
This research was supported by a research fellowship from the Royal College of Radiologists, the Wexham Gastrointestinal Trust, and by General Electric Medical Systems, Slough, UK.
- 3.Macari M, Bini EJ, Xue X, Milano A, Katz SS, Resnick D, Chandarana H, Krinsky G, Klingenbeck K, Marshall CH, Megibow AJ (2002) Colorectal neoplasms: prospective comparison of thin-section low-dose multi-detector row CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection. Radiology 224:383–392PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Dachman AH, Kuniyoshi JK, Boyle CM, Samara Y, Hoffmann KR, Rubin DT, Hanan I (1998) CT colonography with three-dimensional problem solving for detection of colonic polyps. Am J Roentgenol 171:989–995Google Scholar
- 14.Taylor SA, Halligan S, Goh V, Bassett P, Atkin W, Bartram CI (2003) Optimising colonic distension for multidetector-row CT colonography: effect of hyoscine butylbromide and rectal balloon catheter. Radiology 219:99–108Google Scholar
- 15.Kan L, Olivotto IA, Warren Burhenne LJ, Sickles EA, Coldman AJ (2000) Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Radiology 215:563–567Google Scholar