Cargando…

The impact of trained radiographers as concurrent readers on performance and reading time of experienced radiologists in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial

OBJECTIVES: To compare radiologists’ performance reading CTs independently with their performance using radiographers as concurrent readers in lung cancer screening. METHODS: 369 consecutive baseline CTs performed for the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial were double-read by radiologists reading...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nair, Arjun, Screaton, Nicholas J., Holemans, John A., Jones, Diane, Clements, Leigh, Barton, Bruce, Gartland, Natalie, Duffy, Stephen W., Baldwin, David R., Field, John K., Hansell, David M., Devaraj, Anand
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717117/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28643093
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4903-z
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: To compare radiologists’ performance reading CTs independently with their performance using radiographers as concurrent readers in lung cancer screening. METHODS: 369 consecutive baseline CTs performed for the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial were double-read by radiologists reading either independently or concurrently with a radiographer. In concurrent reading, the radiologist reviewed radiographer-identified nodules and then detected any additional nodules. Radiologists recorded their independent and concurrent reading times. For each radiologist, sensitivity, average false-positive detections (FPs) per case and mean reading times for each method were calculated. RESULTS: 694 nodules in 246/369 (66.7%) studies comprised the reference standard. Radiologists’ mean sensitivity and average FPs per case both increased with concurrent reading compared to independent reading (90.8 ± 5.6% vs. 77.5 ± 11.2%, and 0.60 ± 0.53 vs. 0.33 ± 0.20, respectively; p < 0.05 for 3/4 and 2/4 radiologists, respectively). The mean reading times per case decreased from 9.1 ± 2.3 min with independent reading to 7.2 ± 1.0 min with concurrent reading, decreasing significantly for 3/4 radiologists (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of radiologists demonstrated improved sensitivity, a small increase in FP detections and a statistically significantly reduced reading time using radiographers as concurrent readers. KEY POINTS: • Radiographers as concurrent readers could improve radiologists’ sensitivity in lung nodule detection. • An increase in false-positive detections with radiographer-assisted concurrent reading occurred. • The false-positive detection rate was still lower than reported for computer-aided detection. • Concurrent reading with radiographers was also faster than single reading. • The time saved per case using concurrently reading radiographers was relatively modest. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00330-017-4903-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.