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

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.

Malignancy risk estimation of screen-detected nodules at baseline CT: comparison of the PanCan model, Lung-RADS and NCCN guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the PanCan model, Lung-RADS and the 1.2016 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for discriminating malignant from benign pulmonary nodules on baseline screening CT scans and the impact diameter measurement methods have on performances. METHODS: From the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial database, 64 CTs with malignant nodules and 549 baseline CTs with benign nodules were included. Performance of the systems was evaluated applying the system's original diameter definitions: Dlongest-C (PanCan), DmeanAxial (NCCN), both obtained from axial sections, and Dmean3D (Lung-RADS). Subsequently all diameter definitions were applied uniformly to all systems. Areas under the ROC curves (AUC) were used to evaluate risk discrimination. RESULTS: PanCan performed superiorly to Lung-RADS and NCCN (AUC 0.874 vs. 0.813, p = 0.003; 0.874 vs. 0.836, p = 0.010), using the original diameter specifications. When uniformly applying Dlongest-C, Dmean3D and DmeanAxial, PanCan remained superior to Lung-RADS (p < 0.001 - p = 0.001) and NCCN (p < 0.001 - p = 0.016). Diameter definition significantly influenced NCCN's performance with Dlongest-C being the worst (Dlongest-C vs. Dmean3D, p = 0.005; Dlongest-C vs. DmeanAxial, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Without follow-up information, the PanCan model performs significantly superiorly to Lung-RADS and the 1.2016 NCCN guidelines for discriminating benign from malignant nodules. The NCCN guidelines are most sensitive to nodule size definition. KEY POINTS: • PanCan model outperforms Lung-RADS and 1.2016 NCCN guidelines in identifying malignant pulmonary nodules. • Nodule size definition had no significant impact on Lung-RADS and PanCan model. • 1.2016 NCCN guidelines were significantly superior when using mean diameter to longest diameter. • Longest diameter achieved lowest performance for all models. • Mean diameter performed equivalently when derived from axial sections and from volumetry.

Observer Variability for Classification of Pulmonary Nodules on Low-Dose CT Images and Its Effect on Nodule Management.

PURPOSE: To examine the factors that affect inter- and intraobserver agreement for pulmonary nodule type classification on low-radiation-dose computed tomographic (CT) images, and their potential effect on patient management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nodules (n = 160) were randomly selected from the Dutch-Belgian Lung Cancer Screening Trial cohort, with equal numbers of nodule types and similar sizes. Nodules were scored by eight radiologists by using morphologic categories proposed by the Fleischner Society guidelines for management of pulmonary nodules as solid, part solid with a solid component smaller than 5 mm, part solid with a solid component 5 mm or larger, or pure ground glass. Inter- and intraobserver agreement was analyzed by using Cohen κ statistics. Multivariate analysis of variance was performed to assess the effect of nodule characteristics and image quality on observer disagreement. Effect on nodule management was estimated by differentiating CT follow-up for ground-glass nodules, solid nodules 8 mm or smaller, and part-solid nodules smaller than 5 mm from immediate diagnostic work-up for solid nodules larger than 8 mm and part-solid nodules 5 mm or greater. RESULTS: Pair-wise inter- and intraobserver agreement was moderate (mean κ, 0.51 [95% confidence interval, 0.30, 0.68] and 0.57 [95% confidence interval, 0.47, 0.71]). Categorization as part-solid nodules and location in the upper lobe significantly reduced observer agreement (P = .012 and P < .001, respectively). By considering all possible reading pairs (28 possible combinations of observer pairs × 160 nodules = 4480 possible agreements or disagreements), a discordant nodule classification was found in 36.4% (1630 of 4480), related to presence or size of a solid component in 88.7% (1446 of 1630). Two-thirds of these discrepant readings (1061 of 1630) would have potentially resulted in different nodule management. CONCLUSION: There is moderate inter- and intraobserver agreement for nodule classification by using current recommendations for low-radiation-dose CT examinations of the chest. Discrepancies in nodule categorization were mainly caused by disagreement on the size and presence of a solid component, which may lead to different management in the majority of cases with such discrepancies. (©) RSNA, 2015.

Predictive Accuracy of the PanCan Lung Cancer Risk Prediction Model -External Validation based on CT from the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer risk models should be externally validated to test generalizability and clinical usefulness. The Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST) is a population-based prospective cohort study, used to assess the discriminative performances of the PanCan models. METHODS: From the DLCST database, 1,152 nodules from 718 participants were included. Parsimonious and full PanCan risk prediction models were applied to DLCST data, and also coefficients of the model were recalculated using DLCST data. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate risk discrimination. RESULTS: AUCs of 0.826-0.870 were found for DLCST data based on PanCan risk prediction models. In the DLCST, age and family history were significant predictors (p = 0.001 and p = 0.013). Female sex was not confirmed to be associated with higher risk of lung cancer; in fact opposing effects of sex were observed in the two cohorts. Thus, female sex appeared to lower the risk (p = 0.047 and p = 0.040) in the DLCST. CONCLUSIONS: High risk discrimination was validated in the DLCST cohort, mainly determined by nodule size. Age and family history of lung cancer were significant predictors and could be included in the parsimonious model. Sex appears to be a less useful predictor. KEY POINTS: • High accuracy in logistic modelling for lung cancer risk stratification of nodules. • Lung cancer risk prediction is primarily based on size of pulmonary nodules. • Nodule spiculation, age and family history of lung cancer are significant predictors. • Sex does not appear to be a useful risk predictor.

Assisted versus Manual Interpretation of Low-Dose CT Scans for Lung Cancer Screening: Impact on Lung-RADS Agreement.

Purpose To compare the inter- and intraobserver agreement and reading times achieved when assigning Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) categories to baseline and follow-up lung cancer screening studies by using a dedicated CT lung screening viewer with integrated nodule detection and volumetric support with those achieved by using a standard picture archiving and communication system (PACS)-like viewer. Materials and Methods Data were obtained from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). By using data recorded by NLST radiologists, scans were assigned to Lung-RADS categories. For each Lung-RADS category (1 or 2, 3, 4A, and 4B), 40 CT scans (20 baseline scans and 20 follow-up scans) were randomly selected for 160 participants (median age, 61 years; interquartile range, 58-66 years; 61 women) in total. Seven blinded observers independently read all CT scans twice in a randomized order with a 2-week washout period: once by using the standard PACS-like viewer and once by using the dedicated viewer. Observers were asked to assign a Lung-RADS category to each scan and indicate the risk-dominant nodule. Inter- and intraobserver agreement was analyzed by using Fleiss κ values and Cohen weighted κ values, respectively. Reading times were compared by using a Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results The interobserver agreement was moderate for the standard viewer and substantial for the dedicated viewer, with Fleiss κ values of 0.58 (95% CI: 0.55, 0.60) and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.68), respectively. The intraobserver agreement was substantial, with a mean Cohen weighted κ value of 0.67. The median reading time was significantly reduced from 160 seconds with the standard viewer to 86 seconds with the dedicated viewer (P < .001). Conclusion Lung-RADS interobserver agreement increased from moderate to substantial when using the dedicated CT lung screening viewer. The median reading time was substantially reduced when scans were read by using the dedicated CT lung screening viewer. Keywords: CT, Thorax, Lung, Computer Applications-Detection/Diagnosis, Observer Performance, Technology Assessment Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2021.

Towards automatic pulmonary nodule management in lung cancer screening with deep learning.

The introduction of lung cancer screening programs will produce an unprecedented amount of chest CT scans in the near future, which radiologists will have to read in order to decide on a patient follow-up strategy. According to the current guidelines, the workup of screen-detected nodules strongly relies on nodule size and nodule type. In this paper, we present a deep learning system based on multi-stream multi-scale convolutional networks, which automatically classifies all nodule types relevant for nodule workup. The system processes raw CT data containing a nodule without the need for any additional information such as nodule segmentation or nodule size and learns a representation of 3D data by analyzing an arbitrary number of 2D views of a given nodule. The deep learning system was trained with data from the Italian MILD screening trial and validated on an independent set of data from the Danish DLCST screening trial. We analyze the advantage of processing nodules at multiple scales with a multi-stream convolutional network architecture, and we show that the proposed deep learning system achieves performance at classifying nodule type that surpasses the one of classical machine learning approaches and is within the inter-observer variability among four experienced human observers.

Malignancy risk estimation of pulmonary nodules in screening CTs: Comparison between a computer model and human observers.

PURPOSE: To compare human observers to a mathematically derived computer model for differentiation between malignant and benign pulmonary nodules detected on baseline screening computed tomography (CT) scans. METHODS: A case-cohort study design was chosen. The study group consisted of 300 chest CT scans from the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST). It included all scans with proven malignancies (n = 62) and two subsets of randomly selected baseline scans with benign nodules of all sizes (n = 120) and matched in size to the cancers, respectively (n = 118). Eleven observers and the computer model (PanCan) assigned a malignancy probability score to each nodule. Performances were expressed by area under the ROC curve (AUC). Performance differences were tested using the Dorfman, Berbaum and Metz method. Seven observers assessed morphological nodule characteristics using a predefined list. Differences in morphological features between malignant and size-matched benign nodules were analyzed using chi-square analysis with Bonferroni correction. A significant difference was defined at p < 0.004. RESULTS: Performances of the model and observers were equivalent (AUC 0.932 versus 0.910, p = 0.184) for risk-assessment of malignant and benign nodules of all sizes. However, human readers performed superior to the computer model for differentiating malignant nodules from size-matched benign nodules (AUC 0.819 versus 0.706, p < 0.001). Large variations between observers were seen for ROC areas and ranges of risk scores. Morphological findings indicative of malignancy referred to border characteristics (spiculation, p < 0.001) and perinodular architectural deformation (distortion of surrounding lung parenchyma architecture, p < 0.001; pleural retraction, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Computer model and human observers perform equivalent for differentiating malignant from randomly selected benign nodules, confirming the high potential of computer models for nodule risk estimation in population based screening studies. However, computer models highly rely on size as discriminator. Incorporation of other morphological criteria used by human observers to superiorly discriminate size-matched malignant from benign nodules, will further improve computer performance.

Pulmonary Nodule Detection in CT Images: False Positive Reduction Using Multi-View Convolutional Networks.

We propose a novel Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) system for pulmonary nodules using multi-view convolutional networks (ConvNets), for which discriminative features are automatically learnt from the training data. The network is fed with nodule candidates obtained by combining three candidate detectors specifically designed for solid, subsolid, and large nodules. For each candidate, a set of 2-D patches from differently oriented planes is extracted. The proposed architecture comprises multiple streams of 2-D ConvNets, for which the outputs are combined using a dedicated fusion method to get the final classification. Data augmentation and dropout are applied to avoid overfitting. On 888 scans of the publicly available LIDC-IDRI dataset, our method reaches high detection sensitivities of 85.4% and 90.1% at 1 and 4 false positives per scan, respectively. An additional evaluation on independent datasets from the ANODE09 challenge and DLCST is performed. We showed that the proposed multi-view ConvNets is highly suited to be used for false positive reduction of a CAD system.

Automatic classification of pulmonary peri-fissural nodules in computed tomography using an ensemble of 2D views and a convolutional neural network out-of-the-box.

In this paper, we tackle the problem of automatic classification of pulmonary peri-fissural nodules (PFNs). The classification problem is formulated as a machine learning approach, where detected nodule candidates are classified as PFNs or non-PFNs. Supervised learning is used, where a classifier is trained to label the detected nodule. The classification of the nodule in 3D is formulated as an ensemble of classifiers trained to recognize PFNs based on 2D views of the nodule. In order to describe nodule morphology in 2D views, we use the output of a pre-trained convolutional neural network known as OverFeat. We compare our approach with a recently presented descriptor of pulmonary nodule morphology, namely Bag of Frequencies, and illustrate the advantages offered by the two strategies, achieving performance of AUC = 0.868, which is close to the one of human experts.