CT screening for lung cancer

Value of expert review of initial baseline screenings

Dong Ming Xu, In Jae Lee, Shijun Zhao, Yip Rowena, Ali Farooqi, Edson H. Cheung, Cliff P. Connery, Carmine Frumiento, Robert M. Glassberg, Gary Herzog, Jeffrey Peeke, Paul Scheinberg, Palmi Shah, Jana Taylor, Laura Welch, Mark Widmann, Mark Yoder, David F. Yankelevitz, Claudia I. Henschke

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. Appropriate radiologic interpretation of screening GT can minimize unnecessary workup and intervention. This is particularly challenging in the baseline round. We re-port on the quality assurance process we developed for the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Alter initial training at the coordinating center, radiologists at 10 participating institutions and at the center independently interpreted the first 100 baseline screenings. The radiologist at the institutions had access to the center interpretations before issuing the final reports. After the first 100 screenings, the interpretations were jointly discussed. This report summarizes the results of the initial 100 dual interpretations at the 10 institutions. RESULTS. The final institution interpretations agreed with the center in 895 of the 1000 interpretations. Compared with the center, the frequency of positive results was higher at eight of the 10 institutions. The most frequent reason of discrepant interpretations was not following the protocol (n = 55) and the least frequent was not identifying a nodule (n = 3). CONCLUSION. The quality assurance process helped focus educational programs and provided an excellent vehicle for review of the protocol with participating physicians. It also suggests that the rate of positive results can be reduced by such measures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)281-286
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Journal of Roentgenology
Volume204
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Lung Neoplasms
Physicians
Radiologists

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Xu, D. M., Lee, I. J., Zhao, S., Rowena, Y., Farooqi, A., Cheung, E. H., ... Henschke, C. I. (2015). CT screening for lung cancer: Value of expert review of initial baseline screenings. American Journal of Roentgenology, 204(2), 281-286. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.12526
Xu, Dong Ming ; Lee, In Jae ; Zhao, Shijun ; Rowena, Yip ; Farooqi, Ali ; Cheung, Edson H. ; Connery, Cliff P. ; Frumiento, Carmine ; Glassberg, Robert M. ; Herzog, Gary ; Peeke, Jeffrey ; Scheinberg, Paul ; Shah, Palmi ; Taylor, Jana ; Welch, Laura ; Widmann, Mark ; Yoder, Mark ; Yankelevitz, David F. ; Henschke, Claudia I. / CT screening for lung cancer : Value of expert review of initial baseline screenings. In: American Journal of Roentgenology. 2015 ; Vol. 204, No. 2. pp. 281-286.
@article{cd02edfd6e7e438ab405ec838a4d58d8,
title = "CT screening for lung cancer: Value of expert review of initial baseline screenings",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE. Appropriate radiologic interpretation of screening GT can minimize unnecessary workup and intervention. This is particularly challenging in the baseline round. We re-port on the quality assurance process we developed for the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Alter initial training at the coordinating center, radiologists at 10 participating institutions and at the center independently interpreted the first 100 baseline screenings. The radiologist at the institutions had access to the center interpretations before issuing the final reports. After the first 100 screenings, the interpretations were jointly discussed. This report summarizes the results of the initial 100 dual interpretations at the 10 institutions. RESULTS. The final institution interpretations agreed with the center in 895 of the 1000 interpretations. Compared with the center, the frequency of positive results was higher at eight of the 10 institutions. The most frequent reason of discrepant interpretations was not following the protocol (n = 55) and the least frequent was not identifying a nodule (n = 3). CONCLUSION. The quality assurance process helped focus educational programs and provided an excellent vehicle for review of the protocol with participating physicians. It also suggests that the rate of positive results can be reduced by such measures.",
author = "Xu, {Dong Ming} and Lee, {In Jae} and Shijun Zhao and Yip Rowena and Ali Farooqi and Cheung, {Edson H.} and Connery, {Cliff P.} and Carmine Frumiento and Glassberg, {Robert M.} and Gary Herzog and Jeffrey Peeke and Paul Scheinberg and Palmi Shah and Jana Taylor and Laura Welch and Mark Widmann and Mark Yoder and Yankelevitz, {David F.} and Henschke, {Claudia I.}",
year = "2015",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2214/AJR.14.12526",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "204",
pages = "281--286",
journal = "American Journal of Roentgenology",
issn = "0361-803X",
publisher = "American Roentgen Ray Society",
number = "2",

}

Xu, DM, Lee, IJ, Zhao, S, Rowena, Y, Farooqi, A, Cheung, EH, Connery, CP, Frumiento, C, Glassberg, RM, Herzog, G, Peeke, J, Scheinberg, P, Shah, P, Taylor, J, Welch, L, Widmann, M, Yoder, M, Yankelevitz, DF & Henschke, CI 2015, 'CT screening for lung cancer: Value of expert review of initial baseline screenings', American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 204, no. 2, pp. 281-286. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.12526

CT screening for lung cancer : Value of expert review of initial baseline screenings. / Xu, Dong Ming; Lee, In Jae; Zhao, Shijun; Rowena, Yip; Farooqi, Ali; Cheung, Edson H.; Connery, Cliff P.; Frumiento, Carmine; Glassberg, Robert M.; Herzog, Gary; Peeke, Jeffrey; Scheinberg, Paul; Shah, Palmi; Taylor, Jana; Welch, Laura; Widmann, Mark; Yoder, Mark; Yankelevitz, David F.; Henschke, Claudia I.

In: American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 204, No. 2, 01.02.2015, p. 281-286.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - CT screening for lung cancer

T2 - Value of expert review of initial baseline screenings

AU - Xu, Dong Ming

AU - Lee, In Jae

AU - Zhao, Shijun

AU - Rowena, Yip

AU - Farooqi, Ali

AU - Cheung, Edson H.

AU - Connery, Cliff P.

AU - Frumiento, Carmine

AU - Glassberg, Robert M.

AU - Herzog, Gary

AU - Peeke, Jeffrey

AU - Scheinberg, Paul

AU - Shah, Palmi

AU - Taylor, Jana

AU - Welch, Laura

AU - Widmann, Mark

AU - Yoder, Mark

AU - Yankelevitz, David F.

AU - Henschke, Claudia I.

PY - 2015/2/1

Y1 - 2015/2/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE. Appropriate radiologic interpretation of screening GT can minimize unnecessary workup and intervention. This is particularly challenging in the baseline round. We re-port on the quality assurance process we developed for the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Alter initial training at the coordinating center, radiologists at 10 participating institutions and at the center independently interpreted the first 100 baseline screenings. The radiologist at the institutions had access to the center interpretations before issuing the final reports. After the first 100 screenings, the interpretations were jointly discussed. This report summarizes the results of the initial 100 dual interpretations at the 10 institutions. RESULTS. The final institution interpretations agreed with the center in 895 of the 1000 interpretations. Compared with the center, the frequency of positive results was higher at eight of the 10 institutions. The most frequent reason of discrepant interpretations was not following the protocol (n = 55) and the least frequent was not identifying a nodule (n = 3). CONCLUSION. The quality assurance process helped focus educational programs and provided an excellent vehicle for review of the protocol with participating physicians. It also suggests that the rate of positive results can be reduced by such measures.

AB - OBJECTIVE. Appropriate radiologic interpretation of screening GT can minimize unnecessary workup and intervention. This is particularly challenging in the baseline round. We re-port on the quality assurance process we developed for the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Alter initial training at the coordinating center, radiologists at 10 participating institutions and at the center independently interpreted the first 100 baseline screenings. The radiologist at the institutions had access to the center interpretations before issuing the final reports. After the first 100 screenings, the interpretations were jointly discussed. This report summarizes the results of the initial 100 dual interpretations at the 10 institutions. RESULTS. The final institution interpretations agreed with the center in 895 of the 1000 interpretations. Compared with the center, the frequency of positive results was higher at eight of the 10 institutions. The most frequent reason of discrepant interpretations was not following the protocol (n = 55) and the least frequent was not identifying a nodule (n = 3). CONCLUSION. The quality assurance process helped focus educational programs and provided an excellent vehicle for review of the protocol with participating physicians. It also suggests that the rate of positive results can be reduced by such measures.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928522710&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928522710&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2214/AJR.14.12526

DO - 10.2214/AJR.14.12526

M3 - Review article

VL - 204

SP - 281

EP - 286

JO - American Journal of Roentgenology

JF - American Journal of Roentgenology

SN - 0361-803X

IS - 2

ER -