PURPOSE: To characterize the variability in radiologists' interpretations of computed tomography (CT) studies in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) (including assessment of false-positive rates [FPRs] and sensitivity), to examine factors that contribute to variability, and to evaluate trade-offs between FPRs and sensitivity among different groups of radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The HIPAA-compliant NLST was approved by the institutional review board at each screening center; all participants provided informed consent. NLST radiologists reported overall screening results, nodule-specific findings, and recommendations for diagnostic follow-up. A noncalcified nodule of 4 mm or larger constituted a positive screening result. The FPR was defined as the rate of positive screening examinations in participants without a cancer diagnosis within 1 year. Descriptive analyses and mixed-effects models were utilized. The average odds ratio (OR) for a false-positive result across all pairs of radiologists was used as a measure of variability. RESULTS:One hundred twelve radiologists at 32 screening centers each interpreted 100 or more NLST CT studies, interpreting 72 160 of 75 126 total NLST CT studies in aggregate. The mean FPR for radiologists was 28.7% ± 13.7 (standard deviation), with a range of 3.8%-69.0%. The model yielded an average OR of 2.49 across all pairs of radiologists and an OR of 1.83 for pairs within the same screening center. Mean FPRs were similar for academic versus nonacademic centers (27.9% and 26.7%, respectively) and for centers inside (25.0%) versus outside (28.7%) the U.S. "histoplasmosis belt." Aggregate sensitivity was 96.5% for radiologists with FPRs higher than the median (27.1%), compared with 91.9% for those with FPRs lower than the median (P = .02). CONCLUSION: There was substantial variability in radiologists' FPRs. Higher FPRs were associated with modestly higher sensitivity.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To characterize the variability in radiologists' interpretations of computed tomography (CT) studies in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) (including assessment of false-positive rates [FPRs] and sensitivity), to examine factors that contribute to variability, and to evaluate trade-offs between FPRs and sensitivity among different groups of radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The HIPAA-compliant NLST was approved by the institutional review board at each screening center; all participants provided informed consent. NLST radiologists reported overall screening results, nodule-specific findings, and recommendations for diagnostic follow-up. A noncalcified nodule of 4 mm or larger constituted a positive screening result. The FPR was defined as the rate of positive screening examinations in participants without a cancer diagnosis within 1 year. Descriptive analyses and mixed-effects models were utilized. The average odds ratio (OR) for a false-positive result across all pairs of radiologists was used as a measure of variability. RESULTS: One hundred twelve radiologists at 32 screening centers each interpreted 100 or more NLST CT studies, interpreting 72 160 of 75 126 total NLST CT studies in aggregate. The mean FPR for radiologists was 28.7% ± 13.7 (standard deviation), with a range of 3.8%-69.0%. The model yielded an average OR of 2.49 across all pairs of radiologists and an OR of 1.83 for pairs within the same screening center. Mean FPRs were similar for academic versus nonacademic centers (27.9% and 26.7%, respectively) and for centers inside (25.0%) versus outside (28.7%) the U.S. "histoplasmosis belt." Aggregate sensitivity was 96.5% for radiologists with FPRs higher than the median (27.1%), compared with 91.9% for those with FPRs lower than the median (P = .02). CONCLUSION: There was substantial variability in radiologists' FPRs. Higher FPRs were associated with modestly higher sensitivity.
Authors: William E Barlow; Chen Chi; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Carl D'Orsi; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-12-15 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Sumit K Shah; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Kheshini R De Zoysa; James W Sayre; Hyun J Kim; Poonam Batra; Azita Behrashi; Kathleen Brown; Lloyd E Greaser; Jinha M Park; Donald K Roback; Carol Wu; Edward Zaragoza; Jonathan G Goldin; Robert D Suh; Matthew S Brown; Denise R Aberle Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Joseph K Leader; Thomas E Warfel; Carl R Fuhrman; Sara K Golla; Joel L Weissfeld; Ricardo S Avila; Wesly D Turner; Bin Zheng Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Lawrence R Goodman; Meltem Gulsun; Lacey Washington; Paul G Nagy; Kelly L Piacsek Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Matthew S Brown; Jonathan G Goldin; Sarah Rogers; Hyun J Kim; Robert D Suh; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Sumit K Shah; Dao Truong; Kathleen Brown; James W Sayre; David W Gjertson; Poonam Batra; Denise R Aberle Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Jonathan D Clapp; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hester A Gietema; Ying Wang; Dongming Xu; Rob J van Klaveren; Harry de Koning; Ernst Scholten; Johny Verschakelen; Gerhard Kohl; Matthijs Oudkerk; Mathias Prokop Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-08-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Joann G Elmore; Diana L Miglioretti; Lisa M Reisch; Mary B Barton; William Kreuter; Cindy L Christiansen; Suzanne W Fletcher Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-09-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip Chu; Diana L Miglioretti; Chris Quale; Robert D Rosenberg; Gary Cutter; Berta Geller; Peter Bacchetti; Edward A Sickles; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-03-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Laura Cubillos; Alison T Brenner; Katherine Birchard; Louise M Henderson; Paul L Molina; Michael Pignone; Shana Ratner; M Patricia Rivera; Laura Jones; Daniel S Reuland Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2018-09
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
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
Authors: Michael K Gould; Lori C Sakoda; Debra P Ritzwoller; Michael J Simoff; Christine M Neslund-Dudas; Lawrence H Kushi; Lisa Carter-Harris; Heather Spencer Feigelson; George Minowada; V Paul Doria-Rose Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2017-12
Authors: Douglas E Wood; Ella A Kazerooni; Scott L Baum; George A Eapen; David S Ettinger; Lifang Hou; David M Jackman; Donald Klippenstein; Rohit Kumar; Rudy P Lackner; Lorriana E Leard; Inga T Lennes; Ann N C Leung; Samir S Makani; Pierre P Massion; Peter Mazzone; Robert E Merritt; Bryan F Meyers; David E Midthun; Sudhakar Pipavath; Christie Pratt; Chakravarthy Reddy; Mary E Reid; Arnold J Rotter; Peter B Sachs; Matthew B Schabath; Mark L Schiebler; Betty C Tong; William D Travis; Benjamin Wei; Stephen C Yang; Kristina M Gregory; Miranda Hughes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 11.908