RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to analyze the variability of experienced thoracic radiologists in the identification of lung nodules on computed tomography (CT) scans and thereby to investigate variability in the establishment of the "truth" against which nodule-based studies are measured. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty CT scans were reviewed twice by four thoracic radiologists through a two-phase image annotation process. During the initial "blinded read" phase, radiologists independently marked lesions they identified as "nodule >or=3 mm (diameter)," "nodule <3 mm," or "non-nodule >or=3 mm." During the subsequent "unblinded read" phase, the blinded read results of all four radiologists were revealed to each radiologist, who then independently reviewed their marks along with the anonymous marks of their colleagues; a radiologist's own marks then could be deleted, added, or left unchanged. This approach was developed to identify, as completely as possible, all nodules in a scan without requiring forced consensus. RESULTS: After the initial blinded read phase, 71 lesions received "nodule >or=3 mm" marks from at least one radiologist; however, all four radiologists assigned such marks to only 24 (33.8%) of these lesions. After the unblinded reads, a total of 59 lesions were marked as "nodule >or=3 mm" by at least one radiologist. Twenty-seven (45.8%) of these lesions received such marks from all four radiologists, three (5.1%) were identified as such by three radiologists, 12 (20.3%) were identified by two radiologists, and 17 (28.8%) were identified by only a single radiologist. CONCLUSION: The two-phase image annotation process yields improved agreement among radiologists in the interpretation of nodules >or=3 mm. Nevertheless, substantial variability remains across radiologists in the task of lung nodule identification.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to analyze the variability of experienced thoracic radiologists in the identification of lung nodules on computed tomography (CT) scans and thereby to investigate variability in the establishment of the "truth" against which nodule-based studies are measured. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty CT scans were reviewed twice by four thoracic radiologists through a two-phase image annotation process. During the initial "blinded read" phase, radiologists independently marked lesions they identified as "nodule >or=3 mm (diameter)," "nodule <3 mm," or "non-nodule >or=3 mm." During the subsequent "unblinded read" phase, the blinded read results of all four radiologists were revealed to each radiologist, who then independently reviewed their marks along with the anonymous marks of their colleagues; a radiologist's own marks then could be deleted, added, or left unchanged. This approach was developed to identify, as completely as possible, all nodules in a scan without requiring forced consensus. RESULTS: After the initial blinded read phase, 71 lesions received "nodule >or=3 mm" marks from at least one radiologist; however, all four radiologists assigned such marks to only 24 (33.8%) of these lesions. After the unblinded reads, a total of 59 lesions were marked as "nodule >or=3 mm" by at least one radiologist. Twenty-seven (45.8%) of these lesions received such marks from all four radiologists, three (5.1%) were identified as such by three radiologists, 12 (20.3%) were identified by two radiologists, and 17 (28.8%) were identified by only a single radiologist. CONCLUSION: The two-phase image annotation process yields improved agreement among radiologists in the interpretation of nodules >or=3 mm. Nevertheless, substantial variability remains across radiologists in the task of lung nodule identification.
Authors: Joseph K Leader; Thomas E Warfel; Carl R Fuhrman; Sara K Golla; Joel L Weissfeld; Ricardo S Avila; Wesly D Turner; Bin Zheng Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: J H Austin; N L Müller; P J Friedman; D M Hansell; D P Naidich; M Remy-Jardin; W R Webb; E A Zerhouni Journal: Radiology Date: 1996-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Kingshuk Roy Choudhury; David S Paik; Chin A Yi; Sandy Napel; Justus Roos; Geoffrey D Rubin Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Sandy A Napel; Christopher F Beaulieu; Cesar Rodriguez; Jingyu Cui; Jiajing Xu; Ankit Gupta; Daniel Korenblum; Hayit Greenspan; Yongjun Ma; Daniel L Rubin Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Trafton Drew; Melissa Le-Hoa Vo; Alex Olwal; Francine Jacobson; Steven E Seltzer; Jeremy M Wolfe Journal: J Vis Date: 2013-08-06 Impact factor: 2.240
Authors: Charles R Meyer; Samuel G Armato; Charles P Fenimore; Geoffrey McLennan; Luc M Bidaut; Daniel P Barboriak; Marios A Gavrielides; Edward F Jackson; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Paul E Kinahan; Nicholas Petrick; Binsheng Zhao Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Michael F McNitt-Gray; Luc M Bidaut; Samuel G Armato; Charles R Meyer; Marios A Gavrielides; Charles Fenimore; Geoffrey McLennan; Nicholas Petrick; Binsheng Zhao; Anthony P Reeves; Reinhard Beichel; Hyun-Jung Grace Kim; Lisa Kinnard Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.243