4.7 Article

The role of computer-assisted radiographer reporting in lung cancer screening programmes

Journal

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
Volume 32, Issue 10, Pages 6891-6899

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08824-1

Keywords

Lung neoplasms; Early detection of cancer; Mass screening; Radiology; Solitary pulmonary nodule

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This report examines the accuracy of trained reporting radiographers using CADe support to report LDCT scans. The findings show that the sensitivity of the reporting radiographers was 68-73.7% with a specificity of 92.1-92.7%. We cannot recommend CADe-supported radiographers as the sole reader of LDCT scans, but propose potential avenues for further research.
Objectives Successful lung cancer screening delivery requires sensitive, timely reporting of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans, placing a demand on radiology resources. Trained non-radiologist readers and computer-assisted detection (CADe) software may offer strategies to optimise the use of radiology resources without loss of sensitivity. This report examines the accuracy of trained reporting radiographers using CADe support to report LDCT scans performed as part of the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT). Methods In this observational cohort study, two radiographers independently read all LDCT performed within LSUT and reported on the presence of clinically significant nodules and common incidental findings (IFs), including recommendations for management. Reports were compared against a 'reference standard' (RS) derived from nodules identified by study radiologists without CADe, plus consensus radiologist review of any additional nodules identified by the radiographers. Results A total of 716 scans were included, 158 of which had one or more clinically significant pulmonary nodules as per our RS. Radiographer sensitivity against the RS was 68-73.7%, with specificity of 92.1-92.7%. Sensitivity for detection of proven cancers diagnosed from the baseline scan was 83.3-100%. The spectrum of IFs exceeded what could reasonably be covered in radiographer training. Conclusion Our findings highlight the complexity of LDCT reporting requirements, including the limitations of CADe and the breadth of IFs. We are unable to recommend CADe-supported radiographers as a sole reader of LDCT scans, but propose potential avenues for further research including initial triage of abnormal LDCT or reporting of follow-up surveillance scans.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available