Search

The authors sought to compare the sensitivity and reading time obtained using computer-aided detection (CAD) software as second reader (SR) or concurrent reader (CR) in the identification of pulmonary nodules.Unenhanced CT scans of 100 consecutive cancer patients were retrospectively reviewed by four readers to identify all solid, noncalcified pulmonary nodules ranging from 3 to 30 mm in diameter. The sensitivity and reading time of each reader and of CAD alone were calculated at 3-mm and 5-mm thresholds with respect to the reference standard, consisting of a consensus reading by the four radiologists involved in the study. The McNemar test was used to compare the sensitivities obtained by reading without CAD (readers 1 and 2), with CAD as SR (readers 1 and 2 with a 2-month delay), and with CAD as CR (readers 3 and 4). The paired Student's t test was used to compare reading times. A value of p0.05 was considered statistically significant.A total of 258 and 224 nodules were identified at 3-mm and 5-mm thresholds, respectively. The sensitivity of CAD alone was 62.79% and 67.41% at the 3-mm and 5-mm threshold values respectively, with 4.15 and 2.96 false-positive findings per examination. CAD as SR produced a significant increase in sensitivity (p0.001) in nodule detection with respect to reading without CAD both at 3 mm (12.01%) and 5 mm (10.04%); the average increase in sensitivity obtained when comparing CAD as SR to CAD as CR was statistically significant (p0.025) both at the 3-mm (5.35%) and 5-mm (4.68%) thresholds. CAD as CR produced a nonsignificant increase in sensitivity compared with reading without CAD (p0.05). Mean reading time using CAD as SR (330 s) was significantly longer than reading without CAD (135 s, p0.001) and reading with CAD as CR (195 s, p0.025).The use of CAD as CR, without any significant increase in reading time, produces no significant increase in sensitivity in pulmonary nodule detection when compared with reading without CAD (p0.05); CAD as SR, at the cost of longer reading times, increases sensitivity when compared with reading without CAD (p0.001) or with CAD as CR (p0.025).

The aim of this study was to review the computed tomography (CT) features of the pancreatic parenchyma and ducts in patients with gene-mutation-associated pancreatitis (GMAP).Twenty-five patients with GMAP were included in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups according to the time interval between the onset of symptoms and the first CT examination (group A ≤24 months and group B25 months).On qualitative image assessment, in group A patients, pancreatic duct stones were detected in 2/13 with GMAP. All stones were calcified and homogenous. Enhancement of the pancreatic parenchyma was hypovascular in 7/13 patients. In group B patients, pancreatic duct stones were detected in 12/12 with GMAP. Stones were calcified in 10/12 cases and noncalcified (protein plugs) in 2/12; in 5/10 cases, the calcified stones were heterogeneous with noncalcified central core (bull's-eye appearance). Enhancement of the pancreatic parenchyma was hypovascular in 12/12 patients. On quantitative image assessment, in group A patients, the mean diameter of duct stones was 0.6 mm (range 0-5 mm). Mean diameter of the main duct in the pancreatic head and body/tail was 4.8 mm and 4.9 mm, respectively. In group B patients, the mean diameter of duct stones was 21.9 mm (range 2-50 mm). Mean diameter of the main duct in the pancreatic head and body/tail was 18.8 mm and 13.9 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS|: In patients with GMAP and time interval between symptom onset and first CT scan ≤24 months (group A), CT identified normal or slightly increased parenchymal thickness and a main pancreatic duct of normal calibre and without duct stones. In contrast, in patients with GMAP and time interval between symptom onset and first CT scan25 months (group B), it identified large-calibre duct stones with bull's-eye appearance.