4.5 Article

Detection of lung cancer on the chest radiograph: a study on observer performance

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 2, Pages 111-116

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0720-048X(01)00301-1

Keywords

lung neoplasms; thorax radiography; radiology and radiologists; observer performance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study objectives: to study the validity and observers consistency in the detection of lung cancer on the chest radiograph. Materials and methods: the chest radiographs of 100 clinical cases were interpreted by 14 observers. The radiographs were obtained from 30 patients with initially missed but histo pathologically proven non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 35 patients with other cardiopulmonary diseases and 35 patients with no abnormalities. The observers consisted of ten experienced radiologists, two-experienced chest physicians and two residents in radiology. All observers were unaware of the study design. The validity and observer consistency was determined for each observer. Results: the mean sensitivity and specificity of the ten radiologists were 0.36 and 0.90. For the two chest physicians, the mean sensitivity and specificity were 0.29 and 0.96. For the two residents in radiology, mean sensitivity and specificity were 0.25 and 0.94. The mean interobserver kappa and mean intraobserver kappa for the radiologists were 0.38 and 0.54. For the two chest physicians, the mean interobserver kappa was 0.43, while the intraobserver kappa was 0.59. For the two residents in radiology, mean interobserver kappa was 0.35 and the intraobserver kappa was 0.42. There was no significant relation between the consistency parameters and validity parameters. The interobserver and intraobserver kappa values showed good correlation. Conclusion: the validity of the chest radiograph and observers consistency in the detection of nodular lung cancer varies widely. The level of experience is likely to influence the diagnostic performance. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available