European Radiology

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 1025–1033 | Cite as

CT colonography: effect of experience and training on reader performance

  • Stuart A. Taylor
  • Steve HalliganEmail author
  • David Burling
  • Simon Morley
  • Paul Bassett
  • Wendy Atkin
  • Clive I. Bartram


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.


Colonography 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.


  1. 1.
    Yee J, Akerkar GA, Hung RK, Steinauer-Gebauer AM, Wall SD, McQuaid KR (2001) Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients. Radiology 219:685–692PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fenlon HM, Nunes DP, Schroy PC III, Barish MA, Clarke PD, Ferrucci JT (1999) A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. N Engl J Med 341:1496–1503PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 4.
    Dachman AH (2002) Diagnostic performance of virtual colonoscopy. Abdom Imaging 27:260–267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rex DK, Vining D, Kopecky KK (1999) An initial experience with screening for colon polyps using spiral CT with and without CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy). Gastrointest Endosc 50:309–313PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yee J, Kumar NN, Hung RK, Akerkar GA, Kumar PR, Wall SD (2003) Comparison of supine and prone scanning separately and in combination at CT colonography. Radiology 226:653–661PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nodine CF, Kundel HL, Mello-Thoms C, Weinstein SP, Orel SG, Sullivan DC, Conant EF (1999) How experience and training influence mammography expertise. Acad Radiol 6:575–585PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halligan S, Marshall MM, Taylor SA, Bartram CI, Atkin W (2003) Observer variation in detection of colorectal neoplasia on double-contrast barium enema: implications for colorectal cancer screening and training. Clin Radiol 58:948–954CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gluecker T, Meuwly JY, Pescatore P, Schnyder P, Delarive J, Jornod P, Meuli R, Dorta G (2002) Effect of investigator experience in CT colonography. Eur Radiol 12:1405–1409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pescatore P, Glucker T, Delarive J, Meuli R, Pantoflickova D, Duvoisin B, Schnuder P, Blum AL, Dorta G (2000) Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement of CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy). Gut 47:126–130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McFarland EG, Pilgram TK, Brink JA, McDermott RA, Santillan CV, Brady PW, Heiken JP, Balfe DM, Weinstock LB, Thyssen EP, Littenberg (2002) CT colonography: multiobserver diagnostic performance. Radiology 225:380–390PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Taylor SA, Halligan S, Saunders BP, Morley S, Riesewyk C, Atkin W, Bartram CI (2003) Use of multidetector-row CT colonography for detection of colorectal neoplasia in patients referred via the Department of Health “2-Week-wait” initiative. Clin Radiol 58:855–861CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. 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. 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
  16. 16.
    Halligan S (2002) Subspecialist radiology. Clin Radiol 57:982–983CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Denton ER, Field S (1997) Just how valuable is double reporting in screening mammography? Clin Radiol 52:466–468PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE (2002) Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 224:861–869PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tudor GR, Finlay DB (2001) Error review: can this improve reporting performance? Clin Radiol 56:751–754CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fidler JL, Johnson CD, MacCarty RL, Welch TJ, Hara AK, Harmsen WS (2002) Detection of flat lesions in the colon with CT colonography. Abdom Imaging 27:292–300PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart A. Taylor
    • 1
  • Steve Halligan
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • David Burling
    • 1
  • Simon Morley
    • 1
  • Paul Bassett
    • 3
  • Wendy Atkin
    • 2
  • Clive I. Bartram
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Intestinal ImagingSt. Mark’s HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Cancer Research UK Colorectal Cancer UnitSt. Mark’s HospitalLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of StatisticsSt. Mark’s HospitalLondonUK

Personalised recommendations