Evaluation of Reader Variability in the Interpretation of Follow-up CT Scans at Lung Cancer Screening

To measure reader agreement in determining whether lung nodules detected at baseline screening computed tomography (CT) had changed at subsequent screening examinations and to evaluate the variability in recommendations for further follow-up. All subjects were enrolled in the National Lung Screening...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Radiology 2011-04, Vol.259 (1), p.263-270
Hauptverfasser: SINGH, Satinder, PINSKY, Paul, FINEBERG, Naomi S, GIERADA, David S, GARG, Kavita, YANHUI SUN, HRUDAYA NATH, P
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 270
container_issue 1
container_start_page 263
container_title Radiology
container_volume 259
creator SINGH, Satinder
PINSKY, Paul
FINEBERG, Naomi S
GIERADA, David S
GARG, Kavita
YANHUI SUN
HRUDAYA NATH, P
description To measure reader agreement in determining whether lung nodules detected at baseline screening computed tomography (CT) had changed at subsequent screening examinations and to evaluate the variability in recommendations for further follow-up. All subjects were enrolled in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), and each participant consented to the use of their de-identified images for research purposes. The authors randomly selected 100 cases of nodules measuring at least 4.0 mm at 1-year screening CT that were considered by the original screening CT reader to be present on baseline CT scans; nodules considered by the original reader to have changed were oversampled. Selected images from each case showing the entire nodule at both examinations were preloaded on a picture archiving and communication system workstation. Nine radiologists served as readers, and they evaluated whether the nodule was present at baseline and recorded the bidimensional measurements and nodule characteristics at each examination, presence or absence of change, results of screening CT, and follow-up recommendations (high-level follow-up, low-level follow-up, no follow-up). On the basis of reviews during case selection, five nodules seen at follow-up were judged not to have been present at baseline; for 19 of the remaining 95 cases, at least one reader judged the nodule not to have been present at baseline. For the 76 nodules that were unanimously considered to have been present at baseline, 21%-47% (mean ± standard deviation, 30% ± 9) were judged to have grown. The κ values were similar for growth (κ = 0.55) and a positive screening result (κ = 0.51) and were lower for a change in margins and attenuation (κ = 0.27-0.31). The κ value in the recommendation of high- versus low-level follow-up was high (κ = 0.66). Reader agreement on nodule growth and screening result was moderate to substantial. Agreement on follow-up recommendations was lower.
doi_str_mv 10.1148/radiol.10101254
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3064819</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>858780764</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-21bfd548a534b42dc9c5c91890f618b106a064bfac2e51bee743861d2a932bf43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkU1vEzEQhi0EomnhzA35gjht6_HHxntBQlFLK0VCooWrNev1pkaOHWxvUf89WyUNIB_m4GeeGc1LyDtg5wBSX2QcfArnwObHlXxBFqD4sgEB6iVZMCZEoyV0J-S0lJ-MgVR6-ZqccOBSc8EXxF0-YJiw-hRpGuk3h4PL9Admj70Pvj5SH2m9d_QmVpd32dUje5VCSL-baUdXd_TWYiwUK11PcUNXGO2subXZuejj5g15NWIo7u2hnpHvV5d3q-tm_fXLzerzurFS69pw6MdBSY1KyF7ywXZW2Q50x8YWdA-sRdbKfkTLnYLeuaUUuoWBYyd4P0pxRj7tvbup37rBulgzBrPLfov50ST05v-f6O_NJj0YMXs1dLPg40GQ06_JlWq2vlgXAkaXpmL0fD_Nlu3TqIs9aXMqJbvxOAWYecrG7LMxz9nMHe__Xe7IP4cxAx8OABaLYczzFX35y4muZW2rxB9CyZmn</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>858780764</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of Reader Variability in the Interpretation of Follow-up CT Scans at Lung Cancer Screening</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>SINGH, Satinder ; PINSKY, Paul ; FINEBERG, Naomi S ; GIERADA, David S ; GARG, Kavita ; YANHUI SUN ; HRUDAYA NATH, P</creator><creatorcontrib>SINGH, Satinder ; PINSKY, Paul ; FINEBERG, Naomi S ; GIERADA, David S ; GARG, Kavita ; YANHUI SUN ; HRUDAYA NATH, P</creatorcontrib><description>To measure reader agreement in determining whether lung nodules detected at baseline screening computed tomography (CT) had changed at subsequent screening examinations and to evaluate the variability in recommendations for further follow-up. All subjects were enrolled in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), and each participant consented to the use of their de-identified images for research purposes. The authors randomly selected 100 cases of nodules measuring at least 4.0 mm at 1-year screening CT that were considered by the original screening CT reader to be present on baseline CT scans; nodules considered by the original reader to have changed were oversampled. Selected images from each case showing the entire nodule at both examinations were preloaded on a picture archiving and communication system workstation. Nine radiologists served as readers, and they evaluated whether the nodule was present at baseline and recorded the bidimensional measurements and nodule characteristics at each examination, presence or absence of change, results of screening CT, and follow-up recommendations (high-level follow-up, low-level follow-up, no follow-up). On the basis of reviews during case selection, five nodules seen at follow-up were judged not to have been present at baseline; for 19 of the remaining 95 cases, at least one reader judged the nodule not to have been present at baseline. For the 76 nodules that were unanimously considered to have been present at baseline, 21%-47% (mean ± standard deviation, 30% ± 9) were judged to have grown. The κ values were similar for growth (κ = 0.55) and a positive screening result (κ = 0.51) and were lower for a change in margins and attenuation (κ = 0.27-0.31). The κ value in the recommendation of high- versus low-level follow-up was high (κ = 0.66). Reader agreement on nodule growth and screening result was moderate to substantial. Agreement on follow-up recommendations was lower.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0033-8419</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1527-1315</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1527-1315</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10101254</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21248232</identifier><identifier>CODEN: RADLAX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oak Brook, IL: Radiological Society of North America</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Mass Screening - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Observer Variation ; Original Research ; Pneumology ; Prevalence ; Referral and Consultation - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Solitary Pulmonary Nodule - diagnostic imaging ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Tumors of the respiratory system and mediastinum ; United States - epidemiology</subject><ispartof>Radiology, 2011-04, Vol.259 (1), p.263-270</ispartof><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>RSNA, 2011.</rights><rights>RSNA, 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-21bfd548a534b42dc9c5c91890f618b106a064bfac2e51bee743861d2a932bf43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-21bfd548a534b42dc9c5c91890f618b106a064bfac2e51bee743861d2a932bf43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,777,781,882,27905,27906</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=23960665$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21248232$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>SINGH, Satinder</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PINSKY, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FINEBERG, Naomi S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GIERADA, David S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GARG, Kavita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>YANHUI SUN</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HRUDAYA NATH, P</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of Reader Variability in the Interpretation of Follow-up CT Scans at Lung Cancer Screening</title><title>Radiology</title><addtitle>Radiology</addtitle><description>To measure reader agreement in determining whether lung nodules detected at baseline screening computed tomography (CT) had changed at subsequent screening examinations and to evaluate the variability in recommendations for further follow-up. All subjects were enrolled in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), and each participant consented to the use of their de-identified images for research purposes. The authors randomly selected 100 cases of nodules measuring at least 4.0 mm at 1-year screening CT that were considered by the original screening CT reader to be present on baseline CT scans; nodules considered by the original reader to have changed were oversampled. Selected images from each case showing the entire nodule at both examinations were preloaded on a picture archiving and communication system workstation. Nine radiologists served as readers, and they evaluated whether the nodule was present at baseline and recorded the bidimensional measurements and nodule characteristics at each examination, presence or absence of change, results of screening CT, and follow-up recommendations (high-level follow-up, low-level follow-up, no follow-up). On the basis of reviews during case selection, five nodules seen at follow-up were judged not to have been present at baseline; for 19 of the remaining 95 cases, at least one reader judged the nodule not to have been present at baseline. For the 76 nodules that were unanimously considered to have been present at baseline, 21%-47% (mean ± standard deviation, 30% ± 9) were judged to have grown. The κ values were similar for growth (κ = 0.55) and a positive screening result (κ = 0.51) and were lower for a change in margins and attenuation (κ = 0.27-0.31). The κ value in the recommendation of high- versus low-level follow-up was high (κ = 0.66). Reader agreement on nodule growth and screening result was moderate to substantial. Agreement on follow-up recommendations was lower.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mass Screening - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Pneumology</subject><subject>Prevalence</subject><subject>Referral and Consultation - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Solitary Pulmonary Nodule - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Tumors of the respiratory system and mediastinum</subject><subject>United States - epidemiology</subject><issn>0033-8419</issn><issn>1527-1315</issn><issn>1527-1315</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkU1vEzEQhi0EomnhzA35gjht6_HHxntBQlFLK0VCooWrNev1pkaOHWxvUf89WyUNIB_m4GeeGc1LyDtg5wBSX2QcfArnwObHlXxBFqD4sgEB6iVZMCZEoyV0J-S0lJ-MgVR6-ZqccOBSc8EXxF0-YJiw-hRpGuk3h4PL9Admj70Pvj5SH2m9d_QmVpd32dUje5VCSL-baUdXd_TWYiwUK11PcUNXGO2subXZuejj5g15NWIo7u2hnpHvV5d3q-tm_fXLzerzurFS69pw6MdBSY1KyF7ywXZW2Q50x8YWdA-sRdbKfkTLnYLeuaUUuoWBYyd4P0pxRj7tvbup37rBulgzBrPLfov50ST05v-f6O_NJj0YMXs1dLPg40GQ06_JlWq2vlgXAkaXpmL0fD_Nlu3TqIs9aXMqJbvxOAWYecrG7LMxz9nMHe__Xe7IP4cxAx8OABaLYczzFX35y4muZW2rxB9CyZmn</recordid><startdate>20110401</startdate><enddate>20110401</enddate><creator>SINGH, Satinder</creator><creator>PINSKY, Paul</creator><creator>FINEBERG, Naomi S</creator><creator>GIERADA, David S</creator><creator>GARG, Kavita</creator><creator>YANHUI SUN</creator><creator>HRUDAYA NATH, P</creator><general>Radiological Society of North America</general><general>Radiological Society of North America, Inc</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110401</creationdate><title>Evaluation of Reader Variability in the Interpretation of Follow-up CT Scans at Lung Cancer Screening</title><author>SINGH, Satinder ; PINSKY, Paul ; FINEBERG, Naomi S ; GIERADA, David S ; GARG, Kavita ; YANHUI SUN ; HRUDAYA NATH, P</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-21bfd548a534b42dc9c5c91890f618b106a064bfac2e51bee743861d2a932bf43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mass Screening - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Pneumology</topic><topic>Prevalence</topic><topic>Referral and Consultation - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Solitary Pulmonary Nodule - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Tumors of the respiratory system and mediastinum</topic><topic>United States - epidemiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>SINGH, Satinder</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PINSKY, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FINEBERG, Naomi S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GIERADA, David S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GARG, Kavita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>YANHUI SUN</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HRUDAYA NATH, P</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>SINGH, Satinder</au><au>PINSKY, Paul</au><au>FINEBERG, Naomi S</au><au>GIERADA, David S</au><au>GARG, Kavita</au><au>YANHUI SUN</au><au>HRUDAYA NATH, P</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of Reader Variability in the Interpretation of Follow-up CT Scans at Lung Cancer Screening</atitle><jtitle>Radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Radiology</addtitle><date>2011-04-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>259</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>263</spage><epage>270</epage><pages>263-270</pages><issn>0033-8419</issn><issn>1527-1315</issn><eissn>1527-1315</eissn><coden>RADLAX</coden><abstract>To measure reader agreement in determining whether lung nodules detected at baseline screening computed tomography (CT) had changed at subsequent screening examinations and to evaluate the variability in recommendations for further follow-up. All subjects were enrolled in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), and each participant consented to the use of their de-identified images for research purposes. The authors randomly selected 100 cases of nodules measuring at least 4.0 mm at 1-year screening CT that were considered by the original screening CT reader to be present on baseline CT scans; nodules considered by the original reader to have changed were oversampled. Selected images from each case showing the entire nodule at both examinations were preloaded on a picture archiving and communication system workstation. Nine radiologists served as readers, and they evaluated whether the nodule was present at baseline and recorded the bidimensional measurements and nodule characteristics at each examination, presence or absence of change, results of screening CT, and follow-up recommendations (high-level follow-up, low-level follow-up, no follow-up). On the basis of reviews during case selection, five nodules seen at follow-up were judged not to have been present at baseline; for 19 of the remaining 95 cases, at least one reader judged the nodule not to have been present at baseline. For the 76 nodules that were unanimously considered to have been present at baseline, 21%-47% (mean ± standard deviation, 30% ± 9) were judged to have grown. The κ values were similar for growth (κ = 0.55) and a positive screening result (κ = 0.51) and were lower for a change in margins and attenuation (κ = 0.27-0.31). The κ value in the recommendation of high- versus low-level follow-up was high (κ = 0.66). Reader agreement on nodule growth and screening result was moderate to substantial. Agreement on follow-up recommendations was lower.</abstract><cop>Oak Brook, IL</cop><pub>Radiological Society of North America</pub><pmid>21248232</pmid><doi>10.1148/radiol.10101254</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0033-8419
ispartof Radiology, 2011-04, Vol.259 (1), p.263-270
issn 0033-8419
1527-1315
1527-1315
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3064819
source MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Biological and medical sciences
Female
Humans
Male
Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Observer Variation
Original Research
Pneumology
Prevalence
Referral and Consultation - statistics & numerical data
Reproducibility of Results
Sensitivity and Specificity
Solitary Pulmonary Nodule - diagnostic imaging
Tomography, X-Ray Computed - statistics & numerical data
Tumors of the respiratory system and mediastinum
United States - epidemiology
title Evaluation of Reader Variability in the Interpretation of Follow-up CT Scans at Lung Cancer Screening
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T19%3A32%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20Reader%20Variability%20in%20the%20Interpretation%20of%20Follow-up%20CT%20Scans%20at%20Lung%20Cancer%20Screening&rft.jtitle=Radiology&rft.au=SINGH,%20Satinder&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=259&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=263&rft.epage=270&rft.pages=263-270&rft.issn=0033-8419&rft.eissn=1527-1315&rft.coden=RADLAX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1148/radiol.10101254&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E858780764%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=858780764&rft_id=info:pmid/21248232&rfr_iscdi=true