A Scott Laney1, Edward L Petsonk2, Michael D Attfield2. 1. Surveillance Branch, Division of Respiratory Disease Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morgantown, WV. Electronic address: alaney@cdc.gov. 2. Surveillance Branch, Division of Respiratory Disease Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morgantown, WV.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital radiography systems are replacing traditional film for chest radiographic monitoring in the recognition of pneumoconiosis. METHODS: To further investigate previous findings regarding the equivalence of film-screen radiographs (FSRs) and storage phosphor computed radiographs (CRs), FSRs and CRs from 172 underground coal miners were classified independently by seven National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-approved B readers, using the International Labor Office (ILO) classification of radiographs of pneumoconiosis. RESULTS: More CRs were classified as "good" quality compared with FSRs (prevalence ratio [PR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.4-1.6; P , .001). B readers showed good overall agreement on scoring small opacity profusion using CRs vs FSRs (weighted κ, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.54-0.62). Significantly more irregular opacities (compared with rounded) were classified using CR images compared with FSR (PR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6; P = .01). Similarly, the smallest sized opacities (width < 1.5 mm, p and s type) were reported more frequently using CR vs FSR images (PR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5; P < .001). Interreader and intrareader agreement was lower with respect to the classification of shape and size than for small opacity profusion. Overall, interreader and intrareader variability did not differ significantly using CR vs FSR. CONCLUSIONS: Under optimal conditions, using standardized methods and equipment, reader visualization of small pneumoconiotic opacities does not appear to differ meaningfully, whether using CR or FSR. Variability in ILO classifications between imaging modalities appears to be considerably lower than variability among readers. The well-documented challenge of reader variability does not appear to be resolved through the use of digital imaging alone, and additional approaches must be evaluated.
BACKGROUND: Digital radiography systems are replacing traditional film for chest radiographic monitoring in the recognition of pneumoconiosis. METHODS: To further investigate previous findings regarding the equivalence of film-screen radiographs (FSRs) and storage phosphor computed radiographs (CRs), FSRs and CRs from 172 underground coal miners were classified independently by seven National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-approved B readers, using the International Labor Office (ILO) classification of radiographs of pneumoconiosis. RESULTS: More CRs were classified as "good" quality compared with FSRs (prevalence ratio [PR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.4-1.6; P , .001). B readers showed good overall agreement on scoring small opacity profusion using CRs vs FSRs (weighted κ, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.54-0.62). Significantly more irregular opacities (compared with rounded) were classified using CR images compared with FSR (PR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6; P = .01). Similarly, the smallest sized opacities (width < 1.5 mm, p and s type) were reported more frequently using CR vs FSR images (PR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5; P < .001). Interreader and intrareader agreement was lower with respect to the classification of shape and size than for small opacity profusion. Overall, interreader and intrareader variability did not differ significantly using CR vs FSR. CONCLUSIONS: Under optimal conditions, using standardized methods and equipment, reader visualization of small pneumoconiotic opacities does not appear to differ meaningfully, whether using CR or FSR. Variability in ILO classifications between imaging modalities appears to be considerably lower than variability among readers. The well-documented challenge of reader variability does not appear to be resolved through the use of digital imaging alone, and additional approaches must be evaluated.
Authors: Marika Ganten; Boris Radeleff; Annette Kampschulte; Mark D Daniels; Günter W Kauffmann; Jochen Hansmann Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Betty A Levine; Mary Lou Ingeholm; Fred Prior; Seong K Mun; Matthew Freedman; David Weissman; Michael Attfield; Anita Wolfe; Edward Petsonk Journal: Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2009
Authors: V C dos S Antao; E L Petsonk; L Z Sokolow; A L Wolfe; G A Pinheiro; J M Hale; M D Attfield Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Kristin J Cummings; Doug O Johns; Jacek M Mazurek; Frank J Hearl; David N Weissman Journal: Arch Environ Occup Health Date: 2018-12-02 Impact factor: 1.663
Authors: Cara N Halldin; Janet M Hale; David N Weissman; Michael D Attfield; John E Parker; Edward L Petsonk; Robert A Cohen; Travis Markle; David J Blackley; Anita L Wolfe; Robert J Tallaksen; A Scott Laney Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Alexandre Melo Kawassaki; Daniel Antunes Silva Pereira; Fernando Uliana Kay; Ieda Maria Magalhães Laurindo; Carlos Roberto Ribeiro Carvalho; Ronaldo Adib Kairalla Journal: J Bras Pneumol Date: 2015 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.624