Literature DB >> 21248232

Evaluation of reader variability in the interpretation of follow-up CT scans at lung cancer screening.

Satinder Singh1, Paul Pinsky, Naomi S Fineberg, David S Gierada, Kavita Garg, Yanhui Sun, P Hrudaya Nath.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To measure reader agreement in determining whether lung nodules detected at baseline screening computed tomography (CT) had changed at subsequent screening examinations and to evaluate the variability in recommendations for further follow-up.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All subjects were enrolled in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), and each participant consented to the use of their de-identified images for research purposes. The authors randomly selected 100 cases of nodules measuring at least 4.0 mm at 1-year screening CT that were considered by the original screening CT reader to be present on baseline CT scans; nodules considered by the original reader to have changed were oversampled. Selected images from each case showing the entire nodule at both examinations were preloaded on a picture archiving and communication system workstation. Nine radiologists served as readers, and they evaluated whether the nodule was present at baseline and recorded the bidimensional measurements and nodule characteristics at each examination, presence or absence of change, results of screening CT, and follow-up recommendations (high-level follow-up, low-level follow-up, no follow-up).
RESULTS: On the basis of reviews during case selection, five nodules seen at follow-up were judged not to have been present at baseline; for 19 of the remaining 95 cases, at least one reader judged the nodule not to have been present at baseline. For the 76 nodules that were unanimously considered to have been present at baseline, 21%-47% (mean ± standard deviation, 30% ± 9) were judged to have grown. The κ values were similar for growth (κ = 0.55) and a positive screening result (κ = 0.51) and were lower for a change in margins and attenuation (κ = 0.27-0.31). The κ value in the recommendation of high- versus low-level follow-up was high (κ = 0.66).
CONCLUSION: Reader agreement on nodule growth and screening result was moderate to substantial. Agreement on follow-up recommendations was lower. © RSNA, 2011.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21248232      PMCID: PMC3064819          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10101254

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  19 in total

1.  Small pulmonary nodules: volumetrically determined growth rates based on CT evaluation.

Authors:  D F Yankelevitz; A P Reeves; W J Kostis; B Zhao; C I Henschke
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Chest radiography as the comparison for spiral CT in the National Lung Screening Trial.

Authors:  Timothy R Church
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Inter-observer and intra-observer variability of mammogram interpretation: a field study.

Authors:  G Ciccone; P Vineis; A Frigerio; N Segnan
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 4.  Noncalcified lung nodules: volumetric assessment with thoracic CT.

Authors:  Marios A Gavrielides; Lisa M Kinnard; Kyle J Myers; Nicholas Petrick
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers.

Authors:  J R Landis; G G Koch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-06       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms.

Authors:  J G Elmore; C K Wells; C H Lee; D H Howard; A R Feinstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-12-01       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Baseline findings of a randomized feasibility trial of lung cancer screening with spiral CT scan vs chest radiograph: the Lung Screening Study of the National Cancer Institute.

Authors:  John Gohagan; Pamela Marcus; Richard Fagerstrom; Paul Pinsky; Barnett Kramer; Philip Prorok
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 9.410

8.  CT screening for lung cancer: suspiciousness of nodules according to size on baseline scans.

Authors:  Claudia I Henschke; David F Yankelevitz; David P Naidich; Dorothy I McCauley; Georgeann McGuinness; Daniel M Libby; James P Smith; Mark W Pasmantier; Olli S Miettinen
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-02-27       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Are two-dimensional CT measurements of small noncalcified pulmonary nodules reliable?

Authors:  Marie-Pierre Revel; Alvine Bissery; Marie Bienvenu; Laetitia Aycard; Catherine Lefort; Guy Frija
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response.

Authors:  Jeremy J Erasmus; Gregory W Gladish; Lyle Broemeling; Bradley S Sabloff; Mylene T Truong; Roy S Herbst; Reginald F Munden
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-07-01       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  24 in total

1.  Intra and interobserver agreement in the classification of fundus autofluorescence patterns in geographic atrophy secondary to age-related macular degeneration.

Authors:  Marc Biarnés; Jordi Monés; Fabio Trindade; Jordi Alonso; Luis Arias
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-10-28       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Development of transcriptomic biomarker signature in human saliva to detect lung cancer.

Authors:  Lei Zhang; Hua Xiao; Hui Zhou; Silverio Santiago; Jay M Lee; Edward B Garon; Jieping Yang; Ole Brinkmann; Xinmin Yan; David Akin; David Chia; David Elashoff; No-Hee Park; David T W Wong
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2012-06-12       Impact factor: 9.261

Review 3.  European and North American lung cancer screening experience and implications for pulmonary nodule management.

Authors:  Arjun Nair; David M Hansell
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-08-10       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Imaging-based screening: maximizing benefits and minimizing harms.

Authors:  Jessica C Germino; Joann G Elmore; Ruth C Carlos; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2015-06-12       Impact factor: 1.605

5.  Noninvasive characterization of the histopathologic features of pulmonary nodules of the lung adenocarcinoma spectrum using computer-aided nodule assessment and risk yield (CANARY)--a pilot study.

Authors:  Fabien Maldonado; Jennifer M Boland; Sushravya Raghunath; Marie Christine Aubry; Brian J Bartholmai; Mariza Deandrade; Thomas E Hartman; Ronald A Karwoski; Srinivasan Rajagopalan; Anne-Marie Sykes; Ping Yang; Eunhee S Yi; Richard A Robb; Tobias Peikert
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 15.609

6.  National lung screening trial: variability in nodule detection rates in chest CT studies.

Authors:  Paul F Pinsky; David S Gierada; P Hrudaya Nath; Ella Kazerooni; Judith Amorosa
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Retrospective assessment of interobserver agreement and accuracy in classifications and measurements in subsolid nodules with solid components less than 8mm: which window setting is better?

Authors:  Roh-Eul Yoo; Jin Mo Goo; Eui Jin Hwang; Soon Ho Yoon; Chang Hyun Lee; Chang Min Park; Soyeon Ahn
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-07-25       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  Incidental nodule management-should there be a formal process?

Authors:  Sonali Sethi; Scott Parrish
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 9.  Quality assurance and quantitative imaging biomarkers in low-dose CT lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Chara E Rydzak; Samuel G Armato; Ricardo S Avila; James L Mulshine; David F Yankelevitz; David S Gierada
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-10-27       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  An official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians policy statement: implementation of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening programs in clinical practice.

Authors:  Renda Soylemez Wiener; Michael K Gould; Douglas A Arenberg; David H Au; Kathleen Fennig; Carla R Lamb; Peter J Mazzone; David E Midthun; Maryann Napoli; David E Ost; Charles A Powell; M Patricia Rivera; Christopher G Slatore; Nichole T Tanner; Anil Vachani; Juan P Wisnivesky; Sue H Yoon
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 21.405

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.