Assisted versus Manual Interpretation of Low-Dose CT Scans for Lung Cancer Screening: Impact on Lung-RADS Agreement.
CT
Computer Applications-Detection/Diagnosis
Lung
Observer Performance
Technology Assessment
Thorax
Journal
Radiology. Imaging cancer
ISSN: 2638-616X
Titre abrégé: Radiol Imaging Cancer
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101765309
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2021
09 2021
Historique:
entrez:
24
9
2021
pubmed:
25
9
2021
medline:
3
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Purpose To compare the inter- and intraobserver agreement and reading times achieved when assigning Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) categories to baseline and follow-up lung cancer screening studies by using a dedicated CT lung screening viewer with integrated nodule detection and volumetric support with those achieved by using a standard picture archiving and communication system (PACS)-like viewer. Materials and Methods Data were obtained from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). By using data recorded by NLST radiologists, scans were assigned to Lung-RADS categories. For each Lung-RADS category (1 or 2, 3, 4A, and 4B), 40 CT scans (20 baseline scans and 20 follow-up scans) were randomly selected for 160 participants (median age, 61 years; interquartile range, 58-66 years; 61 women) in total. Seven blinded observers independently read all CT scans twice in a randomized order with a 2-week washout period: once by using the standard PACS-like viewer and once by using the dedicated viewer. Observers were asked to assign a Lung-RADS category to each scan and indicate the risk-dominant nodule. Inter- and intraobserver agreement was analyzed by using Fleiss κ values and Cohen weighted κ values, respectively. Reading times were compared by using a Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results The interobserver agreement was moderate for the standard viewer and substantial for the dedicated viewer, with Fleiss κ values of 0.58 (95% CI: 0.55, 0.60) and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.68), respectively. The intraobserver agreement was substantial, with a mean Cohen weighted κ value of 0.67. The median reading time was significantly reduced from 160 seconds with the standard viewer to 86 seconds with the dedicated viewer (
Identifiants
pubmed: 34559005
doi: 10.1148/rycan.2021200160
pmc: PMC8489462
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e200160Références
Cancer Res Treat. 2019 Oct;51(4):1285-1294
pubmed: 30776882
J Thorac Oncol. 2019 Feb;14(2):203-211
pubmed: 30368011
Ann Oncol. 2019 Oct 1;30(10):1672
pubmed: 31168572
Cancers (Basel). 2019 Feb 12;11(2):
pubmed: 30759893
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 6;382(6):503-513
pubmed: 31995683
Radiology. 2005 Jan;234(1):274-83
pubmed: 15537839
J Thorac Oncol. 2016 May;11(5):709-717
pubmed: 26994641
BMJ Open. 2019 Mar 23;9(3):e025026
pubmed: 30904859
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Radiology. 2020 Dec;297(3):675-684
pubmed: 32930652
J Thorac Oncol. 2019 Mar;14(3):343-357
pubmed: 30529598
Eur J Radiol. 2013 Dec;82(12):e873-8
pubmed: 24074648
N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 4;365(5):395-409
pubmed: 21714641
Eur Radiol. 2019 Feb;29(2):924-931
pubmed: 30066248
Br J Radiol. 2018 Oct;91(1090):20180028
pubmed: 29869919
Int J Cancer. 2020 Mar 15;146(6):1503-1513
pubmed: 31162856
Health Technol Assess. 2016 May;20(40):1-146
pubmed: 27224642
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Jan;200(1):74-83
pubmed: 23255744
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb 1;49(2):130-136
pubmed: 30541133
Eur Radiol. 2010 Mar;20(3):549-57
pubmed: 19760237
Radiology. 2016 Oct;281(1):279-88
pubmed: 27019363
Clin Imaging. 2020 Feb;59(2):167-171
pubmed: 31821974
Radiology. 2013 Sep;268(3):865-73
pubmed: 23592767
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan;146(1):153-185
pubmed: 31786740
Acad Radiol. 2008 Mar;15(3):326-33
pubmed: 18280930
Rofo. 2004 Jul;176(7):953-8
pubmed: 15237336
Psychol Bull. 1968 Oct;70(4):213-20
pubmed: 19673146
Thorax. 2019 Apr;74(4):405-409
pubmed: 29440588