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
_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