The impact of trained radiographers as concurrent readers on performance and reading time of experienced radiologists in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial.
226 - 234
MetadataShow full item record
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.
AuthorsNair, A; Screaton, NJ; Holemans, JA; Jones, D; Clements, L; Barton, B; Gartland, N; Duffy, SW; Baldwin, DR; Field, JK; Hansell, DM; Devaraj, A