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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |
_version_ | 1783284082634915840 |
---|---|
author | 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 |
author_facet | 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 |
author_sort | Nair, Arjun |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5717117 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57171172017-12-11 The impact of trained radiographers as concurrent readers on performance and reading time of experienced radiologists in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial 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 Eur Radiol Chest 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. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017-06-22 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5717117/ /pubmed/28643093 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4903-z Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Chest 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 The impact of trained radiographers as concurrent readers on performance and reading time of experienced radiologists in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial |
title | The impact of trained radiographers as concurrent readers on performance and reading time of experienced radiologists in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial |
title_full | The impact of trained radiographers as concurrent readers on performance and reading time of experienced radiologists in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial |
title_fullStr | The impact of trained radiographers as concurrent readers on performance and reading time of experienced radiologists in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial |
title_full_unstemmed | The impact of trained radiographers as concurrent readers on performance and reading time of experienced radiologists in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial |
title_short | The impact of trained radiographers as concurrent readers on performance and reading time of experienced radiologists in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial |
title_sort | impact of trained radiographers as concurrent readers on performance and reading time of experienced radiologists in the uk lung cancer screening (ukls) trial |
topic | Chest |
url | 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 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nairarjun theimpactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT screatonnicholasj theimpactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT holemansjohna theimpactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT jonesdiane theimpactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT clementsleigh theimpactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT bartonbruce theimpactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT gartlandnatalie theimpactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT duffystephenw theimpactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT baldwindavidr theimpactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT fieldjohnk theimpactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT hanselldavidm theimpactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT devarajanand theimpactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT nairarjun impactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT screatonnicholasj impactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT holemansjohna impactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT jonesdiane impactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT clementsleigh impactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT bartonbruce impactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT gartlandnatalie impactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT duffystephenw impactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT baldwindavidr impactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT fieldjohnk impactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT hanselldavidm impactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial AT devarajanand impactoftrainedradiographersasconcurrentreadersonperformanceandreadingtimeofexperiencedradiologistsintheuklungcancerscreeninguklstrial |