Evaluation of reader variability in the interpretation of follow-up CT scans at lung cancer screening

Radiology

Volumn 259, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 263-270

  Singh, Satinder ^a   Pinsky, Paul ^b   Fineberg, Naomi S ^a   Gierada, David S ^c   Garg, Kavita ^d   Sun, Yanhui ^a   Nath, P Hrudaya ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER GROWTH; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE PROCESSING; LUNG CANCER; LUNG NODULE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION ATTENUATION; RADIOLOGIST; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; EPIDEMIOLOGY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT REFERRAL; PREVALENCE; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UNITED STATES; UTILIZATION;

FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREVALENCE; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SOLITARY PULMONARY NODULE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; UNITED STATES;

EID: 79953013255     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10101254     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Swensen SJ, Jett JR, Sloan JA, et al. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose spiral computed tomography. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;165(4):508-513. (Pubitemid 34165474)
2. Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 2003;21(13):2574-2582. (Pubitemid 46606340)
3. Bogot NR, Kazerooni EA, Kelly AM, Quint LE, Desjardins B, Nan B. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the assessment of pulmonary nodule size on CT using film and computer display methods. Acad Radiol 2005;12(8):948-956. (Pubitemid 41116411)
4. Gierada DS, Pilgram TK, Ford M, et al. Lung cancer: interobserver agreement on interpretation of pulmonary findings at low-dose CT screening. Radiology 2008;246(1):265-272. (Pubitemid 350305052)
5. Leader JK, Warfel TE, Fuhrman CR, et al. Pulmonary nodule detection with low-dose CT of the lung: agreement among radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185(4):973-978.
6. Church TR;National Lung Screening Trial Executive Committee. Chest radiography as the comparison for spiral CT in the National Lung Screening Trial. Acad Radiol 2003;10(6):713-715.
7. Gohagan J, Marcus P, Fagerstrom R, et al. Baseline findings of a randomized feasibility trial of lung cancer screening with spiral CT scan vs chest radiograph: the Lung Screening Study of the National Cancer Institute. Chest 2004;126(1):114-121. (Pubitemid 38943126)
8. Fleiss JL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 1971;76(5):378-382.
9. Landis JR, Koch GG. An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 1977;33(2):363-374. (Pubitemid 8131514)
10. Reeves AP, Biancardi AM, Apanasovich TV, et al. The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC): a comparison of different size metrics for pulmonary nodule measurements. Acad Radiol 2007;14(12):1475-1485. (Pubitemid 350116645)
11. Revel MP, Bissery A, Bienvenu M, Aycard L, Lefort C, Frija G. Are two-dimensional CT measurements of small noncalcified pulmonary nodules reliable? Radiology 2004;231(2):453-458.
12. Yankelevitz DF, Gupta R, Zhao B, Henschke CI. Small pulmonary nodules: evaluation with repeat CT - preliminary experience. Radiology 1999;212(2):561-566. (Pubitemid 29356581)
13. Yankelevitz DF, Reeves AP, Kostis WJ, Zhao B, Henschke CI. Small pulmonary nodules: volumetrically determined growth rates based on CT evaluation. Radiology 2000;217(1):251-256. (Pubitemid 33097610)
14. Gavrielides MA, Kinnard LM, Myers KJ, Petrick N. Noncalcified lung nodules: volumetric assessment with thoracic CT. Radiology 2009;251(1):26-37.
15. Goodman LR, Gulsun M, Washington L, Nagy PG, Piacsek KL. Inherent variability of CT lung nodule measurements in vivo using semiautomated volumetric measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186(4):989-994. (Pubitemid 46100197)
16. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994;331(22):1493- 1499. (Pubitemid 24356309)
17. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, et al. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90(23):1801-1809. (Pubitemid 28559892)
18. Ciccone G, Vineis P, Frigerio A, Segnan N. Inter-observer and intra-observer variability of mammogram interpretation: a field study. Eur J Cancer 1992;28(6-7):1054-1058.
19. Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Naidich DP, et al. CT screening for lung cancer: suspiciousness of nodules according to size on baseline scans. Radiology 2004;231(1):164-168. (Pubitemid 38375424)
20. MacMahon H, Austin JH, Gamsu G, et al. Guidelines for management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2005;237(2):395-400. (Pubitemid 41507873)