| A comparison of follow-up recommendations by chest radiologists, general radiologists, and pulmonologists using computer-aided detection to assess radiographs for actionable pulmonary nodules. | |
| | |
MedLine Citation:
|
PMID: 21512043 Owner: NLM Status: In-Data-Review |
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
|
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of our study was to compare the effect of a chest radiography computer-aided detection (CAD) system on the follow-up recommendations of chest radiologists, general radiologists, and pulmonologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A chest radiography CAD system (RapidScreen 1.1) that has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a second-generation version of the system (OnGuard 3.0) not yet approved by the FDA were applied to single frontal radiographs of 200 patients at high risk for lung cancer. One hundred patients had actionable nodules (mean size, 16.9 mm) and 100 patients did not. Six chest radiologists, six general radiologists, and six pulmonologists independently interpreted each image first without CAD and then with CAD during blinded reading sessions. The frequency with which readers correctly referred patients for follow-up tests was measured. Differential effects based on nodule size, shape, location, density, and subtlety were tested with multiplevariable logistic regression. RESULTS: For patients without actionable lesions, pulmonologists showed an increase in their recommendations for follow-up from 0.46 unaided to 0.52 with CAD (p = 0.001), whereas chest and general radiologists had much lower average rates and were not affected by CAD's false marks (0.26 without CAD vs 0.25 with RapidScreen 1.1 and 0.26 with OnGuard 3.0, p ≥ 0.734). CAD improved all readers' detection of moderately subtle lesions (p = 0.013) but did not significantly increase follow-up rates overall for patients with actionable nodules (0.63 unaided vs 0.63 with RapidScreen 1.1, p = 0.795; and 0.63 unaided vs 0.64 with OnGuard 3.0, p = 0.187). CONCLUSION: The effect of CAD on readers' clinical decisions varies depending on the training of the reader. CAD did not improve the performance of chest or general radiologists. Nonradiologists are particularly vulnerable to CAD's false-positive marks. |
| | |
Authors:
|
Moulay Meziane; Nancy A Obuchowski; Omar Lababede; Michael L Lieber; Michael Philips; Peter Mazzone |
Related Documents
:
|
16551933 - Supraclavicular block in the obese population: an analysis of 2020 blocks. 3411343 - Doxorubicin clearance in the obese. 7455863 - The signs and symptoms of secondary syphilis. |
Publication Detail:
|
Type: Journal Article |
Journal Detail:
|
Title: AJR. American journal of roentgenology Volume: 196 ISSN: 1546-3141 ISO Abbreviation: AJR Am J Roentgenol Publication Date: 2011 May |
Date Detail:
|
Created Date: 2011-04-22 Completed Date: - Revised Date: - |
Medline Journal Info:
|
Nlm Unique ID: 7708173 Medline TA: AJR Am J Roentgenol Country: United States |
Other Details:
|
Languages: eng Pagination: W542-9 Citation Subset: AIM; IM |
Affiliation:
|
Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH. |
Export Citation:
|
APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex |
| MeSH Terms | |
Descriptor/Qualifier:
|
|
From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Previous Document: Improved detection of subtle lung nodules by use of chest radiographs with bone suppression imaging:...
Next Document: Radiation Dose at Coronary CT Angiography: Second-Generation Dual-Source CT Versus Single-Source 64-...