Abdominal Imaging

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 153–164 | Cite as

Sources of false positives in computer-assisted CT colonography

Article

Abstract

The application of computer-aided detection (CAD) is expected to improve reader sensitivity and to reduce inter-observer variance in computed tomographic (CT) colonography. However, current CAD systems display a large number of false-positive (FP) detections. The reviewing of a large number of FP CAD detections increases interpretation time, and it may also reduce the specificity and/or sensitivity of a computer-assisted reader. Therefore, it is important to be aware of the patterns and pitfalls of FP CAD detections. This pictorial essay reviews common sources of FP CAD detections that have been observed in the literature and in our experiments in computer-assisted CT colonography. Also the recommended computer-assisted reading technique is described.

Keywords

Computed tomographic colonography Computer-aided detection False-positives Image interpretation Colorectal neoplasms 

Abbreviations

CT

Computed tomographic

2D

Two-dimensional

3D

Three-dimensional

CAD

Computer-aided detection

FP

False-positive

ICV

Ileocecal valve

EC

Electronic cleansing

References

  1. 1.
    Lefere P, Dachman AH, Gryspeerdt S (2007) Computed tomographic colonography: clinical value. Abdom Imaging 32:541–551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, et al. (2008) Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med 359:1207–1217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Regge D, Laudi C, Galatola G, et al. (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomographic colonography for the detection of advanced neoplasia in individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer. JAMA 301:2453–2461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349:2191–2200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. (2008) Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin 58:130–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rockey DC (2009) Computed tomographic colonography: current perspectives and future directions. Gastroenterology 137:7–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yoshida H, Näppi J (2007) CAD in CT colonography without and with oral contrast agents: progress and challenges. Comput Med Imaging Graph 31:267–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doi K (2005) Current status and future potential of computer-aided diagnosis in medical imaging. Br J Radiol 78:S3–S19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Petrick N, Haider M, Summers RM, et al. (2008) CT colonography with computer-aided detection as a second reader: observer performance study. Radiology 246:148–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zheng B, Ganott MA, Britton CA, et al. (2001) Soft-copy mammographic readings with different computer-assisted detection cuing environments: preliminary findings. Radiology 221:633–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Philpotts LE (2009) Can computer-aided detection be detrimental to mammographic interpretation? Radiology 253:17–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Taylor SA, Greenhalgh R, Ilangovan R, et al. (2008) CT colonography and computer-aided detection: effect of false-positive results on reader specificity and reading efficiency in a low-prevalence screening population. Radiology 247:133–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Taylor SA, Brittenden J, Lenton J, et al. (2009) Influence of computer-aided detection false-positives on reader performance and diagnostic confidence for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:1682–1688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dachman AH, Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Morin M (2007) CT colonography: visualization methods, interpretation, and pitfalls. Radiol Clin N Am 45:347–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pickhardt PJ (2004) Differential diagnosis of polypoid lesions seen at CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy). Radiographics 24:1535–1556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Näppi J, Yoshida H (2008) Adaptive correction of the pseudo-enhancement of CT attenuation for fecal-tagging CT colonography. Med Image Anal 12:413–426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson CD, Dachman AH (2000) CT colonography: the next colon screening examination? Radiology 216:331–341PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McFarland EG (2002) Reader strategies for CT colonography. Abdom Imaging 27:275–283PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lostumbo A, Suzuki K, Dachman AH (2010) Flat lesions in CT colonography. Abdom Imaging. doi:10.1007/s00261-009-9562-3
  20. 20.
    O’Connor SD, Summers RM, Choi JR, Pickhardt PJ (2006) Oral contrast adherence to polyps on CT colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 30:51–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Laks S, Macari M, Bini EJ (2004) Positional change in colon polyps at CT colonography. Radiology 231:761–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chen JC, Dachman AH (2006) Cecal mobility: a potential pitfall of CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1086–1089PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iafrate I, Rengo M, Ferrari R, et al. (2007) Spectrum of normal findings, anatomic variants and pathology of ileocecal valve: CT colonography appearances and endoscopic correlation. Abdom Imaging 32:589–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yitta S, Tatineny KC, Cipriani NA, Dachman AH (2006) Characterization of normal ileocecal valve density on CT colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 30:58–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Näppi J, Yoshida H (2007) Fully automated three-dimensional detection of polyps in fecal-tagging CT colonography. Acad Radiol 14:287–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cai W, Zalis ME, Näppi J, Harris GJ, Yoshida H (2008) Structure-analysis method for electronic cleansing in cathartic and noncathartic CT colonography. Med Phys 35:3259–3277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Summers RM, Franaszek M, Miller MT, et al. (2005) Computer-aided detection of polyps on oral contrast-enhanced CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:105–108PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Näppi J, Yoshida H (2009) Virtual tagging for laxative-free CT colonography: pilot evaluation. Med Phys 36:1830–1838PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Macari M, Megibow AJ (2001) Pitfalls of using three-dimensional CT colonography with two-dimensional imaging correlation. Am J Roentgenol 176:137–143Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Baekelandt M, Dewyspelaere J, van Holsbeeck B (2003) Diverticular disease in CT colonography. Eur Radiol 13:L62–L74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee MW, Kim SH, Park HS, et al. (2009) An anthropomorphic phantom study of computer-aided detection performance for polyp detection on CT colonography: a comparison of commercially and academically available systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:445–454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hein PA, Krug LD, Romano VC, et al. (2010) Computer-aided detection in computed tomography colonography with full fecal tagging: comparison of standalone performance of 3 automated polyp detection systems. Can Assoc Radiol J 61:102–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Baekelandt M, Van Holsbeeck B (2004) Laxative-free CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:945–948PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Johnson CD, Manduca A, Fletcher JG, et al. (2008) Noncathartic CT colonography with stool tagging: performance with and without electronic stool subtraction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:361–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Taylor SA, Suzuki N, Beddoe G, Halligan S (2009) Flat neoplasia of the colon: CT colonography with CAD. Abdom Imaging 34:173–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Summers RM, Frentz SM, Liu J, et al. (2009) Conspicuity of colorectal polyps at CT colonography: visual assessment, CAD performance, and the important role of polyp height. Acad Radiol 16:4–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lee SS, Park SH, Kim JK, et al. (2009) Panoramic endoluminal display with minimal image distortion using circumferential radial ray-casting for primary three-dimensional interpretation of CT colonography. Eur Radiol 19:1951–1958PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    de Vries AH, Bipat S, Dekker E, et al. (2010) Polyp measurement based on CT colonography and colonoscopy: variability and systematic differences. Eur Radiol 20:1404–1413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Park SH, Choi EK, Lee SS, et al. (2007) Polyp measurement reliability, accuracy, and discrepancy: optical colonoscopy versus CT colonography with pig colonic specimens. Radiology 244:157–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Taylor SA, Robinson C, Boone D, Honeyfield L, Halligan S (2009) Polyp characteristics correctly annotated by computer-aided detection software but ignored by reporting radiologists during CT colonography. Radiology 253:715–718PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fisichella VA, Jäderling F, Horvath S, et al. (2009) Computer-aided detection (CAD) as a second reader using perspective filet view at CT colonography: effect on performance of inexperienced readers. Clin Radiol 64:972–982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mang T, Peloschek P, Plank C, et al. (2007) Effect of computer-aided detection as a second reader in multidetector-row CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:2598–2607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bielen D, Kiss G (2007) Computer-aided detection for CT colonography: update 2007. Abdom Imaging 32:571–581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yoshida H, Näppi J, MacEneaney P, Rubin DT, Dachman AH (2002) Computer-aided diagnosis scheme for detection of polyps at CT colonography. Radiographics 22:963–979PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations