Detection of lung cancer on the chest radiograph: impact of previous films, clinical information, double reading, and dual reading

被引:26
作者
Quekel, LGBA
Goei, R
Kessels, AGH
van Engelshoven, JMA
机构
[1] Atrium Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, NL-6401 CX Heerlen, Netherlands
[2] Univ Hosp Maastricht, Dept Radiol, Maastricht, Netherlands
[3] Univ Hosp Maastricht, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Med Technol Assessment, Maastricht, Netherlands
关键词
radiography thoracic; lung-neoplasms-diagnosis; observer-variation; sensitivity and specificity; odds ratio;
D O I
10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00382-1
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
To study the impact of clinical information, previous chest radiographs, double reading (one pair of observers read the films independently) and dual reading (one pair of observers read the films simultaneously) on the sensitivity, specificity and odds ratios of observers in the detection of early lung cancer on the chest radiograph. The study was performed in 3 sessions. In the first session, 14 observers reviewed the chest radiographs of 100 cases (30 with early lung cancer, 35 with no abnormalities, 35 with other cardiopulmonary diseases). Sensitivity, specificity, odds ratios and the effect of double reading were calculated. After 4 months, a second session was held in which 7 oboservers reviewed all cases with the provision of all information. The other 7 observers reviewed all cases without information again. To determine the effect of dual reading, in the third session, 4 pairs of observers reviewed all cases in which they disagreed in the first independent reading session. The effects of information, double reading and dual reading on sensitivity, specificity and odds ratio were calculated. The sensitivity of the observers in the first session ranged from 0.20 to 0.60 and the specificity from 0.87 to 0.95. In the second session, these parameters changed only slightly, independent from the availability of clinical information and previous films. With double reading the sensitivity increased and specificity decreased. With dual reading sensitivity increased and specificity remained unchanged. The odds ratios were improved with double reading by 4% and with the dual reading by 14%. Additional clinical information, previous chest radiographs, double reading and dual reading have little impact on the detection of early lung cancer on the chest radiograph. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1146 / 1150
页数:5
相关论文
共 29 条
  • [1] *AM COLL RAD, 1992, IND RAD DIAGN
  • [2] THE EFFICACY OF DOUBLE READING MAMMOGRAMS IN BREAST SCREENING
    ANDERSON, EDC
    MUIR, BB
    WALSH, JS
    KIRKPATRICK, AE
    [J]. CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 1994, 49 (04) : 248 - 251
  • [3] MISSED BRONCHOGENIC-CARCINOMA - RADIOGRAPHIC FINDINGS IN 27 PATIENTS WITH A POTENTIALLY RESECTABLE LESION EVIDENT IN RETROSPECT
    AUSTIN, JHM
    ROMNEY, BM
    GOLDSMITH, LS
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 1992, 182 (01) : 115 - 122
  • [4] Effect of human variability on independent double: Reading in screening mammography
    Beam, CA
    Sullivan, DC
    Layde, PM
    [J]. ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 1996, 3 (11) : 891 - 897
  • [5] Berbaum K S, 1994, Acad Radiol, V1, P217, DOI 10.1016/S1076-6332(05)80717-2
  • [6] INFLUENCE OF CLINICAL HISTORY UPON DETECTION OF NODULES AND OTHER LESIONS
    BERBAUM, KS
    FRANKEN, EA
    DORFMAN, DD
    BARLOON, TJ
    [J]. INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 1988, 23 (01) : 48 - 55
  • [7] TENTATIVE DIAGNOSES FACILITATE THE DETECTION OF DIVERSE LESIONS IN CHEST RADIOGRAPHS
    BERBAUM, KS
    FRANKEN, EA
    DORFMAN, DD
    BARLOON, T
    ELL, SR
    LU, CH
    SMITH, W
    ABUYOUSEF, MM
    [J]. INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 1986, 21 (07) : 532 - 539
  • [8] BROGDON BG, 1983, RADIOL CLIN N AM, V21, P633
  • [9] The influence of previous films on screening mammographic interpretation and detection of breast carcinoma
    Callaway, MP
    Boggis, CRM
    Astley, SA
    Hutt, I
    [J]. CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 1997, 52 (07) : 527 - 529
  • [10] INTERPRETATION OF RADIOGRAPHS - EFFECT OF CLINICAL HISTORY
    DOUBILET, P
    HERMAN, PG
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1981, 137 (05) : 1055 - 1058