HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2333031478v1 233/3/799    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Monnier-Cholley, L. Articles by Arrivé, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Monnier-Cholley, L. Articles by Arrivé, L.

Detection of Lung Cancer on Radiographs: Receiver Operating Characteristic Analyses of Radiologists’, Pulmonologists’, and Anesthesiologists’ Performance¹

¹ From the Departments of Radiology (L.M.C., J.M.T., L.A.) and Public Health (F.C.), Hôpital Saint-Antoine, 184 rue du Faubourg Saint-Antoine, 75012 Paris, France; and Department of Anesthesiology, Hôpital Lariboisière, Paris, France (B.P.C.). Received September 15, 2003; revision requested November 11; final revision received April 29, 2004; accepted May 26. Address correspondence to L.M.C. (e-mail: laurence.monnier-cholley@sat.ap-hop-paris.fr).

PURPOSE: To compare and quantify, by means of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and localization ROC analyses, the performance of radiologists, pulmonologists, and anesthesiologists (residents and staff) in the detection of missed lung cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was not required or obtained for review of radiographs. A set of 60 posteroanterior chest radiographs was presented to 36 observers: 12 radiologists, 12 pulmonologists, and 12 anesthesiologists. Each of these three observer categories included six residents and six staff. Thirty of the radiographs each depicted one lung cancer that was overlooked at prospective image interpretation; the other 30 were normal radiographs matched for age and smoking history. Observers were asked to rate their degree of suspicion concerning the presence of lung cancer by using a visual analog scale and to point out the zone of suspicion on a schematic of the lung. These data were used to generate combined ROC–localization ROC curves and to assess performance. Intraobserver consistency was evaluated by using intraclass correlation coefficients and weighted statistics.

RESULTS: Areas under the ROC curves indicated better performance for radiologists and pulmonologists compared with anesthesiologists (P < .002) and for staff compared with residents (P < .022). Performance was lower for all categories of observers when localization ROC curves were used. Radiologists and staff pulmonologists showed a higher degree of confidence in the assessment of normality than did other categories of physicians. Intraobserver consistency was poor.

CONCLUSION: Experienced readers showed better ability to distinguish normality from abnormality. Combined ROC and localization ROC analyses gave a more reliable quantification of observer performance than did ROC analysis alone.

© RSNA, 2004

Index terms: Cancer screening, 68.11 • Diagnostic radiology, observer performance • Images, interpretation • Lung neoplasms, 60.321 • Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. Li, R. Engelmann, K. Doi, and H. MacMahon Improved Detection of Small Lung Cancers with Dual-Energy Subtraction Chest Radiography Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2008; 190(4): 886 - 891. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Li, R. Engelmann, C. E. Metz, K. Doi, and H. MacMahon Lung Cancers Missed on Chest Radiographs: Results Obtained with a Commercial Computer-aided Detection Program Radiology, January 1, 2008; 246(1): 273 - 280. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]