PURPOSE: To measure reader variability related to the evaluation of screening chest radiographs (CXRs) for findings of primary lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), 100 cases were randomly selected from baseline CXR examinations for retrospective interpretation by 9 NLST radiologists; images with noncalcified lung nodules (NCNs) or other abnormalities suspicious for lung cancer as determined by the original NLST reader were oversampled. Agreement on the presence of pulmonary nodules and abnormalities suspicious for cancer and recommendations for follow-up were assessed by the multirater κ statistic. RESULTS: The multirater κ statistic for interreader agreement on the presence of at least 1 NCN was 0.38. Rates at which readers reported the presence of at least 1 NCN ranged from 32% to 63% (mean, 41%); among 16 subjects with NCN and a cancer diagnosis within 1 year of the CXR examination, an average of 87% (range, 81% to 94%) of cases were classified as suspicious for cancer across all readers. The multirater κ for agreement on follow-up recommendations was 0.34; pairwise κ values ranged from 0.15 to 0.64 (mean, 0.36). For all subjects, readers recommended a follow-up procedure classified as high level (computed tomography, fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography, or biopsy) 42% of the time on average (range, 30% to 67%); this increased to 84% (range, 52% to 100%) when readers reported an NCN and 88% (range, 82% to 94%) for subjects with cancer. CONCLUSION: Reader agreement for screening CXR interpretation and follow-up recommendations is fair overall but is high for malignant lesions.
PURPOSE: To measure reader variability related to the evaluation of screening chest radiographs (CXRs) for findings of primary lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), 100 cases were randomly selected from baseline CXR examinations for retrospective interpretation by 9 NLST radiologists; images with noncalcified lung nodules (NCNs) or other abnormalities suspicious for lung cancer as determined by the original NLST reader were oversampled. Agreement on the presence of pulmonary nodules and abnormalities suspicious for cancer and recommendations for follow-up were assessed by the multirater κ statistic. RESULTS: The multirater κ statistic for interreader agreement on the presence of at least 1 NCN was 0.38. Rates at which readers reported the presence of at least 1 NCN ranged from 32% to 63% (mean, 41%); among 16 subjects with NCN and a cancer diagnosis within 1 year of the CXR examination, an average of 87% (range, 81% to 94%) of cases were classified as suspicious for cancer across all readers. The multirater κ for agreement on follow-up recommendations was 0.34; pairwise κ values ranged from 0.15 to 0.64 (mean, 0.36). For all subjects, readers recommended a follow-up procedure classified as high level (computed tomography, fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography, or biopsy) 42% of the time on average (range, 30% to 67%); this increased to 84% (range, 52% to 100%) when readers reported an NCN and 88% (range, 82% to 94%) for subjects with cancer. CONCLUSION: Reader agreement for screening CXR interpretation and follow-up recommendations is fair overall but is high for malignant lesions.
Authors: Janet E Kuhlman; Jannette Collins; Gregory N Brooks; Donald R Yandow; Lynn S Broderick Journal: Radiographics Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Martin M Oken; Willam G Hocking; Paul A Kvale; Gerald L Andriole; Saundra S Buys; Timothy R Church; E David Crawford; Mona N Fouad; Claudine Isaacs; Douglas J Reding; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Barbara O'Brien; Lawrence R Ragard; Joshua M Rathmell; Thomas L Riley; Patrick Wright; Neil Caparaso; Ping Hu; Grant Izmirlian; Paul F Pinsky; Philip C Prorok; Barnett S Kramer; Anthony B Miller; John K Gohagan; Christine D Berg Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Patrick Berger; Vincent Perot; Pascal Desbarats; José Manuel Tunon-de-Lara; Roger Marthan; François Laurent Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-04-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: K Kerlikowske; D Grady; J Barclay; S D Frankel; S H Ominsky; E A Sickles; V Ernster Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1998-12-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David S Gierada; Thomas K Pilgram; Melissa Ford; Richard M Fagerstrom; Timothy R Church; Hrudaya Nath; Kavita Garg; Diane C Strollo Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-11-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Asha Bonney; Reem Malouf; Corynne Marchal; David Manners; Kwun M Fong; Henry M Marshall; Louis B Irving; Renée Manser Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-08-03
Authors: Jong Seok Ahn; Shadi Ebrahimian; Shaunagh McDermott; Sanghyup Lee; Laura Naccarato; John F Di Capua; Markus Y Wu; Eric W Zhang; Victorine Muse; Benjamin Miller; Farid Sabzalipour; Bernardo C Bizzo; Keith J Dreyer; Parisa Kaviani; Subba R Digumarthy; Mannudeep K Kalra Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-08-01
Authors: Kun-Hsing Yu; Tsung-Lu Michael Lee; Ming-Hsuan Yen; S C Kou; Bruce Rosen; Jung-Hsien Chiang; Isaac S Kohane Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 5.428