Nonradiologists as second readers for intraluminal findings at CT colonography

Kale D. Bodily, Joel Garland Fletcher, Trudy Engelby, Mark Percival, Jared A. Christensen, Brett Young, Aaron Krych, Douglas C. Vander Kooi, Drew Rodysill, Jeff L. Fidler, C. Daniel Johnson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

50 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Multiple trials have documented wide interobserver variability between radiologists interpreting computed tomography colonography (CTC) exams. We sought to determine if nonradiologists could learn to interpret intraluminal findings at CTC with a high degree of sensitivity to determine if they could play a role as second readers in interpreting CTC exams. Seven nonradiologists (five medical students, two radiologic technologists) undertook self-directed CTC training using a teaching file of 50 cases; thereafter, each reader blindly interpreted 50 cases with colonoscopic correlation (30 positive, 20 negative). Results were compared with a previously studied cohort of radiologists. The two technologists additionally repeated the exam after 6 weeks of clinical experience. The sensitivity of nonradiologists for small (5-9 mm) polyps, large (>9 mm) lesions, and cancers was similar to that of radiologists (0.45 versus 0.63, 0.74 versus 0.71, and 0.80 versus 0.88, respectively). After 6 weeks of clinical experience as second readers, the accuracy of one technologist significantly improved (from 74% to 90%, P = .008), whereas accuracy of the other tended toward improvement (from 74% to 86%%, P = .25). Nonradiologists detected, on average, 6/36 additional polyps (17%) missed by any radiologist, and the sensitivity of 5/7 nonradiologists was significantly greater than at least one of the radiologists (P = .05). Nonradiologists can perform similarly to radiologists in interpreting intraluminal findings at CTC, with nonradiologist performance improving even after experience with more than 100 cases. Skilled nonradiologists may play a vital role as a second reader of intraluminal findings or by performing quality control of examinations before patient dismissal.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)67-73
Number of pages7
JournalAcademic Radiology
Volume12
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2005

Fingerprint

Computed Tomographic Colonography
Tomography
Polyps
Observer Variation
Medical Students
Quality Control
Radiologists
Teaching

Keywords

  • CT colonography
  • interobserver variability
  • nonradiologists
  • performance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Nonradiologists as second readers for intraluminal findings at CT colonography. / Bodily, Kale D.; Fletcher, Joel Garland; Engelby, Trudy; Percival, Mark; Christensen, Jared A.; Young, Brett; Krych, Aaron; Vander Kooi, Douglas C.; Rodysill, Drew; Fidler, Jeff L.; Johnson, C. Daniel.

In: Academic Radiology, Vol. 12, No. 1, 01.2005, p. 67-73.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bodily, KD, Fletcher, JG, Engelby, T, Percival, M, Christensen, JA, Young, B, Krych, A, Vander Kooi, DC, Rodysill, D, Fidler, JL & Johnson, CD 2005, 'Nonradiologists as second readers for intraluminal findings at CT colonography', Academic Radiology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 67-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2004.10.055
Bodily, Kale D. ; Fletcher, Joel Garland ; Engelby, Trudy ; Percival, Mark ; Christensen, Jared A. ; Young, Brett ; Krych, Aaron ; Vander Kooi, Douglas C. ; Rodysill, Drew ; Fidler, Jeff L. ; Johnson, C. Daniel. / Nonradiologists as second readers for intraluminal findings at CT colonography. In: Academic Radiology. 2005 ; Vol. 12, No. 1. pp. 67-73.
@article{1eeb44bdb7634f93949fdcb2285f737b,
title = "Nonradiologists as second readers for intraluminal findings at CT colonography",
abstract = "Multiple trials have documented wide interobserver variability between radiologists interpreting computed tomography colonography (CTC) exams. We sought to determine if nonradiologists could learn to interpret intraluminal findings at CTC with a high degree of sensitivity to determine if they could play a role as second readers in interpreting CTC exams. Seven nonradiologists (five medical students, two radiologic technologists) undertook self-directed CTC training using a teaching file of 50 cases; thereafter, each reader blindly interpreted 50 cases with colonoscopic correlation (30 positive, 20 negative). Results were compared with a previously studied cohort of radiologists. The two technologists additionally repeated the exam after 6 weeks of clinical experience. The sensitivity of nonradiologists for small (5-9 mm) polyps, large (>9 mm) lesions, and cancers was similar to that of radiologists (0.45 versus 0.63, 0.74 versus 0.71, and 0.80 versus 0.88, respectively). After 6 weeks of clinical experience as second readers, the accuracy of one technologist significantly improved (from 74{\%} to 90{\%}, P = .008), whereas accuracy of the other tended toward improvement (from 74{\%} to 86{\%}{\%}, P = .25). Nonradiologists detected, on average, 6/36 additional polyps (17{\%}) missed by any radiologist, and the sensitivity of 5/7 nonradiologists was significantly greater than at least one of the radiologists (P = .05). Nonradiologists can perform similarly to radiologists in interpreting intraluminal findings at CTC, with nonradiologist performance improving even after experience with more than 100 cases. Skilled nonradiologists may play a vital role as a second reader of intraluminal findings or by performing quality control of examinations before patient dismissal.",
keywords = "CT colonography, interobserver variability, nonradiologists, performance",
author = "Bodily, {Kale D.} and Fletcher, {Joel Garland} and Trudy Engelby and Mark Percival and Christensen, {Jared A.} and Brett Young and Aaron Krych and {Vander Kooi}, {Douglas C.} and Drew Rodysill and Fidler, {Jeff L.} and Johnson, {C. Daniel}",
year = "2005",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.acra.2004.10.055",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "67--73",
journal = "Academic Radiology",
issn = "1076-6332",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Nonradiologists as second readers for intraluminal findings at CT colonography

AU - Bodily, Kale D.

AU - Fletcher, Joel Garland

AU - Engelby, Trudy

AU - Percival, Mark

AU - Christensen, Jared A.

AU - Young, Brett

AU - Krych, Aaron

AU - Vander Kooi, Douglas C.

AU - Rodysill, Drew

AU - Fidler, Jeff L.

AU - Johnson, C. Daniel

PY - 2005/1

Y1 - 2005/1

N2 - Multiple trials have documented wide interobserver variability between radiologists interpreting computed tomography colonography (CTC) exams. We sought to determine if nonradiologists could learn to interpret intraluminal findings at CTC with a high degree of sensitivity to determine if they could play a role as second readers in interpreting CTC exams. Seven nonradiologists (five medical students, two radiologic technologists) undertook self-directed CTC training using a teaching file of 50 cases; thereafter, each reader blindly interpreted 50 cases with colonoscopic correlation (30 positive, 20 negative). Results were compared with a previously studied cohort of radiologists. The two technologists additionally repeated the exam after 6 weeks of clinical experience. The sensitivity of nonradiologists for small (5-9 mm) polyps, large (>9 mm) lesions, and cancers was similar to that of radiologists (0.45 versus 0.63, 0.74 versus 0.71, and 0.80 versus 0.88, respectively). After 6 weeks of clinical experience as second readers, the accuracy of one technologist significantly improved (from 74% to 90%, P = .008), whereas accuracy of the other tended toward improvement (from 74% to 86%%, P = .25). Nonradiologists detected, on average, 6/36 additional polyps (17%) missed by any radiologist, and the sensitivity of 5/7 nonradiologists was significantly greater than at least one of the radiologists (P = .05). Nonradiologists can perform similarly to radiologists in interpreting intraluminal findings at CTC, with nonradiologist performance improving even after experience with more than 100 cases. Skilled nonradiologists may play a vital role as a second reader of intraluminal findings or by performing quality control of examinations before patient dismissal.

AB - Multiple trials have documented wide interobserver variability between radiologists interpreting computed tomography colonography (CTC) exams. We sought to determine if nonradiologists could learn to interpret intraluminal findings at CTC with a high degree of sensitivity to determine if they could play a role as second readers in interpreting CTC exams. Seven nonradiologists (five medical students, two radiologic technologists) undertook self-directed CTC training using a teaching file of 50 cases; thereafter, each reader blindly interpreted 50 cases with colonoscopic correlation (30 positive, 20 negative). Results were compared with a previously studied cohort of radiologists. The two technologists additionally repeated the exam after 6 weeks of clinical experience. The sensitivity of nonradiologists for small (5-9 mm) polyps, large (>9 mm) lesions, and cancers was similar to that of radiologists (0.45 versus 0.63, 0.74 versus 0.71, and 0.80 versus 0.88, respectively). After 6 weeks of clinical experience as second readers, the accuracy of one technologist significantly improved (from 74% to 90%, P = .008), whereas accuracy of the other tended toward improvement (from 74% to 86%%, P = .25). Nonradiologists detected, on average, 6/36 additional polyps (17%) missed by any radiologist, and the sensitivity of 5/7 nonradiologists was significantly greater than at least one of the radiologists (P = .05). Nonradiologists can perform similarly to radiologists in interpreting intraluminal findings at CTC, with nonradiologist performance improving even after experience with more than 100 cases. Skilled nonradiologists may play a vital role as a second reader of intraluminal findings or by performing quality control of examinations before patient dismissal.

KW - CT colonography

KW - interobserver variability

KW - nonradiologists

KW - performance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=19944430941&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=19944430941&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.acra.2004.10.055

DO - 10.1016/j.acra.2004.10.055

M3 - Article

C2 - 15691727

AN - SCOPUS:19944430941

VL - 12

SP - 67

EP - 73

JO - Academic Radiology

JF - Academic Radiology

SN - 1076-6332

IS - 1

ER -