» Articles » PMID: 21397422

Effect of a Tele-training Programme on Radiographers in the Interpretation of CT Colonography

Overview
Journal Eur J Radiol
Specialty Radiology
Date 2011 Mar 15
PMID 21397422
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To assess the performance of radiographers in CT colonography (CTC) after a tele-training programme, supervised by 2 experienced radiologists.

Materials And Methods: Five radiographers underwent training in CTC using a tele-training programme mainly based on the interpretation of 75 training cases performed in the novice department. To evaluate the educational performance, each radiographer was tested on 20 test cases with 27 lesions >6mm (12: 6-9 mm; 15: >10mm). Sensitivity, specificity and PPV for polyps ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 10 mm were calculated with point estimates and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The results were compared by comparing 95% CI with a 5% significance level.

Results: In the training cases overall per-polyp sensitivity was 57% (95% CI 46.1-67.9) and 69.1% (95% CI 50.6-87.5) for lesions ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 10 mm, respectively. Overall per patient sensitivity, specificity and PPV were 86.4% (95% CI 76.7-96.1), 85.4% (95% CI 77-93.9) and 78.3% (95% CI 64.9-91.7), respectively. In the test cases overall per-polyp sensitivity was 80.7% (95% CI 69.5-92) and 94.7% (95% CI 85.6-100 ×) for lesions ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 10 mm, respectively. Overall per patient sensitivity, specificity and PPV were 92.9% (95% CI 83.1-100 ×), 64% (95% CI 13.1-100 ×) and 87.8% (95% CI 71.7-100 ×), respectively. There was a statistically significant improvement in per-polyp sensitivity for lesions ≥ 6 mm in the test cases. No statistically significant differences were found in per patient sensitivity, specificity and PPV, but there was an improvement.

Conclusion: This training programme based on tele-training obtained good performance of radiographers in detecting tumoral lesions in CTC.

Citing Articles

Comparing the performance of trained radiographers against experienced radiologists in the UK lung cancer screening (UKLS) trial.

Nair A, Gartland N, Barton B, Jones D, Clements L, Screaton N Br J Radiol. 2016; 89(1066):20160301.

PMID: 27461068 PMC: 5124804. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20160301.


Comparison of the diagnostic performance of CT colonography interpreted by radiologists and radiographers.

Lauridsen C, Lefere P, Gerke O, Hageman S, Karstoft J, Gryspeerdt S Insights Imaging. 2013; 4(4):491-7.

PMID: 23765729 PMC: 3731471. DOI: 10.1007/s13244-013-0260-x.


Comparison of sensitivity of lung nodule detection between radiologists and technologists on low-dose CT lung cancer screening images.

Kakinuma R, Ashizawa K, Kobayashi T, Fukushima A, Hayashi H, Kondo T Br J Radiol. 2012; 85(1017):e603-8.

PMID: 22919013 PMC: 3487074. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/75768386.


Does CT colonography have a role for population-based colorectal cancer screening?.

de Haan M, Halligan S, Stoker J Eur Radiol. 2012; 22(7):1495-503.

PMID: 22549102 PMC: 3366291. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-012-2449-7.