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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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