TY - JOUR
T1 - Effect of directed training on reader performance for CT colonography
T2 - Multicenter study
AU - Halligan, Steve
AU - Burling, David
AU - Atkin, Wendy
AU - Bartram, Clive
AU - Fenlon, Helen
AU - Laghi, Andrea
AU - Stoker, Jaap
AU - Altman, Douglas G.
AU - Bassett, Paul
AU - Frost, Roger
AU - Taylor, Stuart
AU - Honeyfield, Lesley
AU - De Villiers, Melinda
AU - Nicholson, David
AU - Rudralingham, Velauthan
AU - Renaut, Lisa
AU - Kay, Clive
AU - Lowe, Andy
AU - Williams-Butt, Jane
AU - Florie, Jasper
AU - Poulus, Martin
AU - Van Der Hulst, Victor
AU - Lefere, Philippe
AU - Marrannes, Jesse
AU - Dessey, Guido
AU - O'Hare, Alan
AU - Foley, Shane
AU - Neri, Emmanuele
AU - Vagli, Paola
AU - Politi, Benedetta
AU - Iannaccone, Riccardo
AU - Mangiapane, Filipo
AU - Ori, Sante
AU - Gallo, Teresa
AU - Nieddu, Giulia
AU - Signoretta, Saverio
AU - Regge, Daniele
PY - 2007/1
Y1 - 2007/1
N2 - Purpose: To define the interpretative performance of radiologists experience in computed tomographic (CT) colonography and to compare it with that of novice observers who had undergone directed training, with colonoscopy as the reference standard. Materials and Methods: Physicians at each participating center received ethical committee approval and followed the committees' requests regarding informed consent. Nine experienced radiologists, nine trained radiologists, and 10 trained technologists from nine centers read 40 CT colonographic studies selected from a data set of 51 studies and modeled to simulate a population with positive fecal occult blood test results: Studies were obtained in eight patients with cancer, 12 patients with large polyp, four patients with medium polyp, and 27 patients without colonic lesions. Findings were verified with colonoscopy. An experienced radiologist used 50 endoscopically validated studies to train novice observers before they were allowed to participate. Observers used one software platform to read studies over 2 days. Responses were collated and compared with the known diagnostic category for each subject. The number of correctly classified subjects was determined for each observer, and differences between groups were examined with bootstrap analysis. Results: Overall, 28 observers read 1084 studies and detected 121 cancers, 134 large polyps, and 33 medium polyps; 448 healthy subjects were categorized correctly. Experienced radiologists detected 116 lesions; trained radiologists and technologists detected 85 and 87 lesions, respectively. Overall accuracy of experienced observers (74.2%) was significantly better than that of trained radiologists (66.6%) and technologists (63.2%). There was no significant difference (P = .33) between overall accuracy of trained radiologists and that of technologists; however, some trainees reached the mean performance achieved by experienced observers. Conclusions: Experienced observers interpreted CT colonographic images significantly better than did novices trained with 50 studies. On average, no difference between trained radiologists and trained technologists was found; however, individual performance was variable and some trainees out-performed some experienced observers.
AB - Purpose: To define the interpretative performance of radiologists experience in computed tomographic (CT) colonography and to compare it with that of novice observers who had undergone directed training, with colonoscopy as the reference standard. Materials and Methods: Physicians at each participating center received ethical committee approval and followed the committees' requests regarding informed consent. Nine experienced radiologists, nine trained radiologists, and 10 trained technologists from nine centers read 40 CT colonographic studies selected from a data set of 51 studies and modeled to simulate a population with positive fecal occult blood test results: Studies were obtained in eight patients with cancer, 12 patients with large polyp, four patients with medium polyp, and 27 patients without colonic lesions. Findings were verified with colonoscopy. An experienced radiologist used 50 endoscopically validated studies to train novice observers before they were allowed to participate. Observers used one software platform to read studies over 2 days. Responses were collated and compared with the known diagnostic category for each subject. The number of correctly classified subjects was determined for each observer, and differences between groups were examined with bootstrap analysis. Results: Overall, 28 observers read 1084 studies and detected 121 cancers, 134 large polyps, and 33 medium polyps; 448 healthy subjects were categorized correctly. Experienced radiologists detected 116 lesions; trained radiologists and technologists detected 85 and 87 lesions, respectively. Overall accuracy of experienced observers (74.2%) was significantly better than that of trained radiologists (66.6%) and technologists (63.2%). There was no significant difference (P = .33) between overall accuracy of trained radiologists and that of technologists; however, some trainees reached the mean performance achieved by experienced observers. Conclusions: Experienced observers interpreted CT colonographic images significantly better than did novices trained with 50 studies. On average, no difference between trained radiologists and trained technologists was found; however, individual performance was variable and some trainees out-performed some experienced observers.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33845638683&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33845638683&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1148/radiol.2421051000
DO - 10.1148/radiol.2421051000
M3 - Article
C2 - 17185666
AN - SCOPUS:33845638683
VL - 242
SP - 152
EP - 161
JO - Radiology
JF - Radiology
SN - 0033-8419
IS - 1
ER -