Lung-RADS represents a categorical system published by the American College of Radiology to standardise management in lung cancer screening. The purpose of the study was to quantify how well readers agree in assigning Lung-RADS categories to screening CTs; secondary goals were to assess causes of disagreement and evaluate its impact on patient management.
For the observer study, 80 baseline and 80 follow-up scans were randomly selected from the NLST trial covering all Lung-RADS categories in an equal distribution. Agreement of seven observers was analysed using Cohen’s kappa statistics. Discrepancies were correlated with patient management, test performance and diagnosis of malignancy within the scan year.
Pairwise interobserver agreement was substantial (mean kappa 0.67, 95% CI 0.58–0.77). Lung-RADS category disagreement was seen in approximately one-third (29%, 971) of 3360 reading pairs, resulting in different patient management in 8% (278/3360). Out of the 91 reading pairs that referred to scans with a tumour diagnosis within 1 year, discrepancies in only two would have resulted in a substantial management change.
Assignment of lung cancer screening CT scans to Lung-RADS categories achieves substantial interobserver agreement. Impact of disagreement on categorisation of malignant nodules was low.
• Lung-RADS categorisation of low-dose lung screening CTs achieved substantial interobserver agreement.
• Major cause for disagreement was assigning a different nodule as risk-dominant.
• Disagreement led to a different follow-up time in 8% of reading pairs.
Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD et al (2011) Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 365:395–409 CrossRef
Moyer VA, Preventive Services Task Force US (2014) Screening for lung cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 160:330–338
National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines. The NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Lung Cancer Screening (Version 1.2017). Release date August 10, 2016. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp#detection. Accessed 26 Oct 2016
Lung-RADS Assessment Categories, Version 1.0. American College of Radiology. Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS™). http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/LungRADS. Accessed 15 Sep 2014
Callister ME, Baldwin DR, Akram AR et al (2015) British Thoracic Society guidelines for the investigation and management of pulmonary nodules. Thorax 70:ii1–ii54 CrossRef
Gould MK, Donington J, Lynch WR et al (2013) Evaluation of individuals with pulmonary nodules: when is it lung cancer? Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd edn: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 143:e93S–e120S CrossRef
Tammemagi MC, Lam S (2014) Screening for lung cancer using low dose computed tomography. BMJ 348:g2253 CrossRef
Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Mirtcheva R, McGuinness G, McCauley D, Miettinen OS (2002) CT screening for lung cancer: frequency and significance of part-solid and nonsolid nodules. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:1053–1057 CrossRef
van Riel SJ, Sanchez CI, Bankier AA et al (2015) Observer variability for classification of pulmonary nodules on low-dose CT images and its effect on nodule management. Radiology 277:863–871 CrossRef
Ridge CA, Yildirim A, Boiselle PM et al (2016) Differentiating between subsolid and solid pulmonary nodules at CT: inter- and intraobserver agreement between experienced thoracic radiologists. Radiology 278:888–896 CrossRef
Gierada DS, Pilgram TK, Ford M et al (2008) Lung cancer: interobserver agreement on interpretation of pulmonary findings at low-dose CT screening. Radiology 246:265–272 CrossRef
Marten K, Auer F, Schmidt S, Kohl G, Rummeny EJ, Engelke C (2006) Inadequacy of manual measurements compared to automated CT volumetry in assessment of treatment response of pulmonary metastases using RECIST criteria. Eur Radiol 16:781–790 CrossRef
Singh S, Pinsky P, Fineberg NS et al (2011) Evaluation of reader variability in the interpretation of follow-up CT scans at lung cancer screening. Radiology 259:263–270 CrossRef
Aberle DR, Berg CD, Black WC et al (2011) The National Lung Screening Trial: overview and study design. Radiology 258:243–253 CrossRef
Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement of categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174 CrossRef
Pinsky PF, Gierada DS, Black W et al (2015) Performance of Lung-RADS in the National Lung Screening Trial. Ann Intern Med 162:485–491 CrossRef
McKee BJ, Regis SM, McKee AB, Flacke S, Wald C (2015) Performance of ACR Lung-RADS in a clinical CT lung screening program. J Am Coll Radiol 12:273–276 CrossRef
Pinsky PF, Gierada DS, Nath PH, Kazerooni E, Amorosa J (2013) National lung screening trial: variability in nodule detection rates in chest CT studies. Radiology 268:865–873 CrossRef
Clark TJ, Flodd TF, Maximin ST, Sachs PB (2015) Lung CT screening reporting and data system speed and accuracy are increased with the use of a semiautomated computer application. J Am Coll Radiol 12:1301–1306 CrossRef
Kazerooni EA, Armstrong MR, Amorosa JK et al (2016) ACR CT Accreditation Program and the Lung Cancer Screening Program Designation. J Am Coll Radiol 13:R30–R34 CrossRef
- Observer variability for Lung-RADS categorisation of lung cancer screening CTs: impact on patient management
Sarah J. van Riel
Ernst Th. Scholten
Mathilde M. Winkler Wille
Bartjan de Hoop
Onno M. Mets
Bram van Ginneken
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie
Meistgelesene Bücher aus der Radiologie
e.Med Kampagnen-Visual, Mail Icon II