Literature DB >> 22919013

Comparison of sensitivity of lung nodule detection between radiologists and technologists on low-dose CT lung cancer screening images.

R Kakinuma1, K Ashizawa, T Kobayashi, A Fukushima, H Hayashi, T Kondo, M Machida, M Matsusako, K Minami, K Oikado, M Okuda, S Takamatsu, M Sugawara, S Gomi, Y Muramatsu, K Hanai, Y Muramatsu, M Kaneko, R Tsuchiya, N Moriyama.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the sensitivity of detection of lung nodules on low-dose screening CT images between radiologists and technologists.
METHODS: 11 radiologists and 10 technologists read the low-dose screening CT images of 78 subjects. On images with a slice thickness of 5 mm, there were 60 lung nodules that were ≥5 mm in diameter: 26 nodules with pure ground-glass opacity (GGO), 7 nodules with mixed ground-glass opacity (GGO with a solid component) and 27 solid nodules. On images with a slice thickness of 2 mm, 69 lung nodules were ≥5 mm in diameter: 35 pure GGOs, 7 mixed GGOs and 27 solid nodules. The 21 observers read screening CT images of 5-mm slice thickness at first; then, 6 months later, they read screening CT images of 2-mm slice thickness from the 78 subjects.
RESULTS: The differences in the mean sensitivities of detection of the pure GGOs, mixed GGOs and solid nodules between radiologists and technologists were not statistically significant, except for the case of solid nodules; the p-values of the differences for pure GGOs, mixed GGOs and solid nodules on the CT images with 5-mm slice thickness were 0.095, 0.461 and 0.005, respectively, and the corresponding p-values on CT images of 2-mm slice thickness were 0.971, 0.722 and 0.0037, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Well-trained technologists may contribute to the detection of pure and mixed GGOs ≥5 mm in diameter on low-dose screening CT images.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22919013      PMCID: PMC3487074          DOI: 10.1259/bjr/75768386

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  18 in total

Review 1.  The role of the supertechnologist.

Authors:  R M Friedenberg
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Medical radiologic technologist review: effects on a population-based breast cancer screening program.

Authors:  J M Tonita; J P Hillis; C H Lim
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Prospective study of thoracoscopic limited resection for ground-glass opacity selected by computed tomography.

Authors:  Masao Nakata; Shigeki Sawada; Hideyuki Saeki; Shigemitsu Takashima; Hiroshi Mogami; Norihiro Teramoto; Kenji Eguchi
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.330

4.  Prescreening mammography by technologists: a preliminary assessment.

Authors:  Jules H Sumkin; Herta M Klaman; Marianne Graham; Theresa Ruskauff; Rose C Gennari; Jill L King; Amy H Klym; Marie A Ganott; David Gur
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Malignant versus benign nodules at CT screening for lung cancer: comparison of thin-section CT findings.

Authors:  Feng Li; Shusuke Sone; Hiroyuki Abe; Heber Macmahon; Kunio Doi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-10-21       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  CT colonography interpretation times: effect of reader experience, fatigue, and scan findings in a multi-centre setting.

Authors:  David Burling; Steve Halligan; Douglas G Altman; Wendy Atkin; Clive Bartram; Helen Fenlon; Andrea Laghi; Jaap Stoker; Stuart Taylor; Roger Frost; Guido Dessey; Melinda De Villiers; Jasper Florie; Shane Foley; Lesley Honeyfield; Riccardo Iannaccone; Teresa Gallo; Clive Kay; Philippe Lefere; Andrew Lowe; Filipo Mangiapane; Jesse Marrannes; Emmanuele Neri; Giulia Nieddu; David Nicholson; Alan O'Hare; Sante Ori; Benedetta Politi; Martin Poulus; Daniele Regge; Lisa Renaut; Velauthan Rudralingham; Saverio Signoretta; Paola Vagli; Victor Van der Hulst; Jane Williams-Butt
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-04-25       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Effect of a tele-training programme on radiographers in the interpretation of CT colonography.

Authors:  Carsten Lauridsen; Philippe Lefere; Oke Gerke; Stefaan Gryspeerdt
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2011-03-11       Impact factor: 3.528

8.  Computer-aided diagnosis as a second reader: spectrum of findings in CT studies of the chest interpreted as normal.

Authors:  Kersten Peldschus; Peter Herzog; Susan A Wood; Jugesh I Cheema; Philip Costello; U Joseph Schoepf
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 9.410

9.  Peripheral lung cancer: screening and detection with low-dose spiral CT versus radiography.

Authors:  M Kaneko; K Eguchi; H Ohmatsu; R Kakinuma; T Naruke; K Suemasu; N Moriyama
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  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

View more
  6 in total

1.  The impact of radiologists' expertise on screen results decisions in a CT lung cancer screening trial.

Authors:  Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Matthijs Oudkerk; Pim A de Jong; Willem P Mali; Harry J M Groen; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Inter- and intrascanner variability of pulmonary nodule volumetry on low-dose 64-row CT: an anthropomorphic phantom study.

Authors:  X Xie; M J Willemink; Y Zhao; P A de Jong; P M A van Ooijen; M Oudkerk; M J W Greuter; R Vliegenthart
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Comparing the performance of trained radiographers against experienced radiologists in the UK lung cancer screening (UKLS) trial.

Authors:  Arjun Nair; Natalie Gartland; Bruce Barton; Diane Jones; Leigh Clements; Nicholas J Screaton; John A Holemans; Stephen W Duffy; John K Field; David R Baldwin; David M Hansell; Anand Devaraj
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 4.  Lung cancer screening: nodule identification and characterization.

Authors:  Ioannis Vlahos; Konstantinos Stefanidis; Sarah Sheard; Arjun Nair; Charles Sayer; Joanne Moser
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2018-06

5.  The impact of trained radiographers as concurrent readers on performance and reading time of experienced radiologists in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial.

Authors:  Arjun Nair; Nicholas J Screaton; John A Holemans; Diane Jones; Leigh Clements; Bruce Barton; Natalie Gartland; Stephen W Duffy; David R Baldwin; John K Field; David M Hansell; Anand Devaraj
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Validation of a deep learning computer aided system for CT based lung nodule detection, classification, and growth rate estimation in a routine clinical population.

Authors:  John T Murchison; Gillian Ritchie; David Senyszak; Jeroen H Nijwening; Gerben van Veenendaal; Joris Wakkie; Edwin J R van Beek
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-05-05       Impact factor: 3.752

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.