Incorporation of CAD (computer-aided detection) with thin-slice lung CT in routine 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging read-out protocol for detection of lung nodules

Abstract

Abstract Objective To evaluate the detection rate and performance of 18F-FDG PET alone (PET), the combination of PET and low-dose thick-slice CT (PET/lCT), PET and diagnostic thin-slice CT (PET/dCT), and additional computer-aided detection (PET/dCT/CAD) for lung nodules (LN)/metastases in tumor patients. Along with this, assessment of inter-reader agreement and time requirement for different techniques were evaluated as well. Methods In 100 tumor patients (56 male, 44 female; age range: 22–93 years, mean age: 60 years) 18F-FDG PET images, low-dose CT with shallow breathing (5 mm slice thickness), and diagnostic thin-slice CT (1 mm slice thickness) in full inspiration were retrospectively evaluated by three readers with variable experience (junior, mid-level, and senior) for the presence of lung nodules/metastases and additionally analyzed with CAD. Time taken for each analysis and number of the nodules detected were assessed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, accuracy, and Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of each technique was calculated. Histopathology and/or imaging follow-up served as reference standard for the diagnosis of metastases. Results Three readers, on an average, detected 40 LN in 17 patients with PET only, 121 LN in 37 patients using ICT, 283 LN in 60 patients with dCT, and 282 LN in 53 patients with CAD. On average, CAD detected 49 extra LN, missed by the three readers without CAD, whereas CAD overall missed 53 LN. There was very good inter-reader agreement regarding the diagnosis of metastases for all four techniques (kappa: 0.84–0.93). The average time required for the evaluation of LN in PET, lCT, dCT, and CAD was 25, 31, 60, and 40 s, respectively; the assistance of CAD lead to average 33% reduction in time requirement for evaluation of lung nodules compared to dCT. The time-saving effect was highest in the less experienced reader. Regarding the diagnosis of metastases, sensitivity and specificity combined of all readers were 47.8%/96.2% for PET, 80.0%/81.9% for PET/lCT, 100%/56.7% for PET/dCT, and 95.6%/64.3% for PET/CAD. No significant difference was observed regarding the ROC AUC (area under the curve) between the imaging methods. Conclusion Implementation of CAD for the detection of lung nodules/metastases in routine 18F-FDG PET/CT read-out is feasible. The combination of diagnostic thin-slice CT and CAD significantly increases the detection rate of lung nodules in tumor patients compared to the standard PET/CT read-out. PET combined with low-dose CT showed the best balance between sensitivity and specificity regarding the diagnosis of metastases per patient. CAD reduces the time required for lung nodule/metastasis detection, especially for less experienced readers.