ABSTRACT: To conduct post-hoc analysis of National CT Colonography Trial data and compare the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomographic (CT) colonography in participants younger than 65 years with those in participants aged 65 years and older.
Of 2600 asymptomatic participants recruited at 15 centers for the trial, 497 were 65 years of age or older. Approval of this HIPAA-compliant study was obtained from the institutional review board of each site, and informed consent was obtained from each subject. Radiologists certified in CT colonography reported lesions 5 mm in diameter or larger. Screening detection of large (≥10-mm) histologically confirmed colorectal neoplasia was the primary end point; screening detection of smaller (6-9-mm) colorectal neoplasia was a secondary end point. The differences in sensitivity and specificity of CT colonography in the two age cohorts (age < 65 years and age ≥ 65 years) were estimated with bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs).
Complete data were available for 477 participants 65 years of age or older (among 2531 evaluable participants). Prevalence of adenomas 1 cm or larger for the older participants versus the younger participants was 6.9% (33 of 477) versus 3.7% (76 of 2054) (P < .004). For large neoplasms, mean estimates for CT colonography sensitivity and specificity among the older cohort were 0.82 (95% CI: 0.644, 0.944) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.779, 0.883), respectively. For large neoplasms in the younger group, CT colonography sensitivity and specificity were 0.92 (95% CI: 0.837, 0.967) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.816, 0.899), respectively. Per-polyp sensitivity for large neoplasms for the older and younger populations was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.578, 0.869) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.717, 0.924), respectively. For the older and younger groups, per-participant sensitivity was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.565, 0.854) and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.745, 0.882) for detecting adenomas 6 mm in diameter or larger.
For most measures of diagnostic performance and in most subsets, the difference between senior-aged participants and those younger than 65 years was not statistically significant.
Radiology 02/2012; 263(2):401-8. · 5.73 Impact Factor
ABSTRACT: To determine whether the reader's preference for a primary two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) computed tomographic (CT) colonographic interpretation method affects performance when using each technique.
In this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, images from 2531 CT colonographic examinations were interpreted by 15 trained radiologists by using colonoscopy as a reference standard. Through a survey at study start, study end, and 6-month intervals, readers were asked whether their interpretive preference in clinical practice was to perform a primary 2D, primary 3D, or both 2D and 3D interpretation. Readers were randomly assigned a primary interpretation method (2D or 3D) for each CT colonographic examination. Sensitivity and specificity of each method (primary 2D or 3D), for detecting polyps of 10 mm or larger and 6 mm or larger, based on interpretive preference were estimated by using resampling methods.
Little change was observed in readers' preferences when comparing them at study start and study end, respectively, as follows: primary 2D (eight and seven readers), primary 3D (one and two readers), and both 2D and 3D (six and six readers). Sensitivity and specificity, respectively, for identifying examinations with polyps of 10 mm or larger for readers with a primary 2D preference (n = 1128 examinations) were 0.84 and 0.86, which was not significantly different from 0.84 and 0.83 for readers who preferred 2D and 3D (n = 1025 examinations) or from 0.76 and 0.82 for readers with a primary 3D preference (n = 378 examinations). When performance by using the assigned 2D or 3D method was evaluated on the basis of 2D or 3D preference, there was no difference among those readers by using their preferred versus not preferred method of interpretation. Similarly, no significant difference among readers or preferences was seen when performance was evaluated for detection of polyps of 6 mm or larger.
The reader's preference for interpretive method had no effect on CT colonographic performance.
Radiology 03/2011; 259(2):435-41. · 5.73 Impact Factor
ABSTRACT: The objective of this article is to describe the experience of the National CT Colonography Trial with radiologist training and qualification testing at CT colonography (CTC) and to correlate this experience with subsequent performance in a prospective screening study.
Ten inexperienced radiologists participated in a 1-day educational course, during which partial CTC examinations of 27 cases with neoplasia and full CTC examinations of 15 cases were reviewed using primary 2D and 3D search. Subsequently 15 radiologists took a qualification examination composed of 20 CTC cases. Radiologists who did not pass the first qualification examination attended a second day of focused retraining of 30 cases, which was followed by a second qualification examination. The results of the initial and subsequent qualification tests were compared with reader performance in a large prospective screening trial.
All radiologists took and passed the qualification examinations. Seven radiologists passed the qualification examination the first time it was offered, and eight radiologists passed after focused retraining. Significantly better sensitivities were obtained on the second versus the first examination for the retrained radiologists (difference = 16%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in sensitivities between the groups who passed the qualification examination the first time versus those who passed the second time in the prospective study (88% vs 92%, respectively; p = 0.612). In the prospective study, the odds of correctly identifying diseased cases increased by 1.5 fold for every 50-case increase in reader experience or formal training (p < 0.025).
A significant difference in performance was observed among radiologists before formalized training, but testing and focused retraining improved radiologist performance, resulting in an overall high sensitivity across radiologists in a subsequent, prospective screening study.
American Journal of Roentgenology 07/2010; 195(1):117-25. · 2.78 Impact Factor