National lung screening trial: Variability in nodule detection rates in chest CT studies

Radiology

Volumn 268, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 865-873

  Pinsky, Paul F ^a   Gierada, David S ^b   Nath, P Hrudaya ^c   Kazerooni, Ella ^d   Amorosa, Judith ^e  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c University of Alabama at Birmingham   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^e The College of New Jersey   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LUNG NODULE; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

AGED; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; RADIOGRAPHY, THORACIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SOLITARY PULMONARY NODULE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84883136945     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13121530     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011;365(5): 395-409.
2. Black WC. Computed tomography screening for lung cancer: review of screening principles and update on current status. Cancer 2007;110(11): 2370-2384.
3. 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.
4. Singh S, Pinsky P, Fineberg NS, et al. Evaluation of reader variability in the interpretation of follow-up CT scans at lung cancer screening. Radiology 2011;259(1): 263-270.
5. Shah SK, McNitt-Gray MF, De Zoysa KR, et al. Solitary pulmonary nodule diagnosis on CT: results of an observer study. Acad Radiol 2005;12(4): 496-501.
6. Brown MS, Goldin JG, Rogers S, et al. Computer- aided lung nodule detection in CT: results of large-scale observer test. Acad Radiol 2005;12(6): 681-686.
7. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Berg CD, et al. The National Lung Screening Trial: overview and study design. Radiology 2011;258(1): 243-253.
8. Elmore JG, Miglioretti DL, Reisch LM, et al. Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94(18): 1373-1380.
9. Larsen K, Petersen JH, Budtz-Jørgensen E, Endahl L. Interpreting parameters in the logistic regression model with random effects. Biometrics 2000;56(3): 909-914.
10. Facts about histoplasmosis. National Eye Institute Web site. http://www.nei.nih.gov/ health/histoplasmosis/histoplasmosis.asp. Accessed August 28, 2012.
11. Munden RF, Hess KR. "Ditzels" on chest CT: survey of members of the Society of Thoracic Radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176(6): 1363-1369.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Gietema HA, Wang Y, Xu D, et al. Pulmonary nodules detected at lung cancer screening: interobserver variability of semiautomated volume measurements. Radiology 2006;241(1): 251-257.
15. Wang Y, van Klaveren RJ, van der Zaag- Loonen HJ, et al. Effect of nodule characteristics on variability of semiautomated volume measurements in pulmonary nodules detected in a lung cancer screening program. Radiology 2008;248(2): 625-631.
16. Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA, et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96(24): 1840-1850.
17. Elmore JG, Jackson SL, Abraham L, et al. Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy. Radiology 2009;253(3): 641-651.
18. Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti DL, et al. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97(5): 358-367.