Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Observer variability for Lung-RADS categorisation of lung cancer screening CTs: impact on patient management

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Facing privacy in neuroimaging: removing facial features degrades performance of image analysis methods

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Automated 3D segmentation and diameter measurement of the thoracic aorta on non-contrast enhanced CT

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Automatically computed rating scales from MRI for patients with cognitive disorders

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Learning to quantify emphysema extent: What labels do we need?

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Increased respiratory morbidity in individuals with interstitial lung abnormalities

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Classification of Volumetric Images Using Multi-Instance Learning and Extreme value Theorem

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. Chest x-ray findings in tuberculosis patients identified by passive and active case finding: A retrospective study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  • Sarah J van Riel
  • Colin Jacobs
  • Ernst Th Scholten
  • Rianne Wittenberg
  • Mathilde M Winkler Wille
  • Bartjan de Hoop
  • Ralf Sprengers
  • Onno M Mets
  • Bram Geurts
  • Mathias Prokop
  • Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop
  • Bram van Ginneken
View graph of relations

OBJECTIVES: 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.

METHODS: 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.

RESULTS: 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.

CONCLUSIONS: 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.

KEY POINTS: • 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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalEuropean Radiology
Volume29
Issue number2
Pages (from-to)924-931
ISSN0938-7994
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

ID: 54881687