Ovarian cancer: Comparison of observer performance for four methods of interpreting CT scans

Patrick J. Fultz, Christina V. Jacobs, W. Jackson Hall, Ronald Gottlieb, Deborah Rubens, Saara M S Totterman, Steven Meyers, Cynthia Angel, Giuseppe Del Priore, David P. Warshal, Kelly H. Zou, David E. Shapiro

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of four interpretative methods on observers' mean sensitivity and specificity by using computed tomography (CT) of ovarian carcinoma as a model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT scan in 98 patients with ovarian carcinoma and 49 women who were disease free were retrospectively reviewed by four experienced blinded radiologists to compare single-observer reading, single-observer reading with an anatomic checklist, paired-observer reading (simultaneous double reading), and replicated reading (combination of two independent readings). Confidence level scoring was used to identify three possible disease forms in each patient: extranodal tumor, lymphadenopathy, and ascites. Patient conditions were then categorized as abnormal or normal. RESULTS: There were no significant improvements in sensitivity or specificity for classification of patient conditions as abnormal or normal when comparing single-observer interpretation with single- observer interpretation with a checklist or paired-observer interpretation. Although there was no significant improvement in the mean sensitivity (93% vs 94%) by using the replicated reading method, there was a statistically significant improvement in mean specificity (85% vs 79%) for the replicated readings compared with single-observer interpretations (P <.05). CONCLUSION: Diagnostic aids such as checklists and paired simultaneous readings did not lead to an improved mean observer performance for experienced readers. However, an increase in the mean specificity occurred with replicated readings.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)401-410
Number of pages10
JournalRadiology
Volume212
Issue number2
StatePublished - Aug 1999
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ovarian Neoplasms
Reading
Tomography
Checklist
Carcinoma
Sensitivity and Specificity
Ascites

Keywords

  • Diagnostic radiology, observer performance
  • Images, interpretation
  • Ovary, CT
  • Ovary, neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Fultz, P. J., Jacobs, C. V., Hall, W. J., Gottlieb, R., Rubens, D., Totterman, S. M. S., ... Shapiro, D. E. (1999). Ovarian cancer: Comparison of observer performance for four methods of interpreting CT scans. Radiology, 212(2), 401-410.

Ovarian cancer : Comparison of observer performance for four methods of interpreting CT scans. / Fultz, Patrick J.; Jacobs, Christina V.; Hall, W. Jackson; Gottlieb, Ronald; Rubens, Deborah; Totterman, Saara M S; Meyers, Steven; Angel, Cynthia; Del Priore, Giuseppe; Warshal, David P.; Zou, Kelly H.; Shapiro, David E.

In: Radiology, Vol. 212, No. 2, 08.1999, p. 401-410.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fultz, PJ, Jacobs, CV, Hall, WJ, Gottlieb, R, Rubens, D, Totterman, SMS, Meyers, S, Angel, C, Del Priore, G, Warshal, DP, Zou, KH & Shapiro, DE 1999, 'Ovarian cancer: Comparison of observer performance for four methods of interpreting CT scans', Radiology, vol. 212, no. 2, pp. 401-410.
Fultz PJ, Jacobs CV, Hall WJ, Gottlieb R, Rubens D, Totterman SMS et al. Ovarian cancer: Comparison of observer performance for four methods of interpreting CT scans. Radiology. 1999 Aug;212(2):401-410.
Fultz, Patrick J. ; Jacobs, Christina V. ; Hall, W. Jackson ; Gottlieb, Ronald ; Rubens, Deborah ; Totterman, Saara M S ; Meyers, Steven ; Angel, Cynthia ; Del Priore, Giuseppe ; Warshal, David P. ; Zou, Kelly H. ; Shapiro, David E. / Ovarian cancer : Comparison of observer performance for four methods of interpreting CT scans. In: Radiology. 1999 ; Vol. 212, No. 2. pp. 401-410.
@article{980daa0045e94d53a740fb0134b41c5f,
title = "Ovarian cancer: Comparison of observer performance for four methods of interpreting CT scans",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To assess the effects of four interpretative methods on observers' mean sensitivity and specificity by using computed tomography (CT) of ovarian carcinoma as a model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT scan in 98 patients with ovarian carcinoma and 49 women who were disease free were retrospectively reviewed by four experienced blinded radiologists to compare single-observer reading, single-observer reading with an anatomic checklist, paired-observer reading (simultaneous double reading), and replicated reading (combination of two independent readings). Confidence level scoring was used to identify three possible disease forms in each patient: extranodal tumor, lymphadenopathy, and ascites. Patient conditions were then categorized as abnormal or normal. RESULTS: There were no significant improvements in sensitivity or specificity for classification of patient conditions as abnormal or normal when comparing single-observer interpretation with single- observer interpretation with a checklist or paired-observer interpretation. Although there was no significant improvement in the mean sensitivity (93{\%} vs 94{\%}) by using the replicated reading method, there was a statistically significant improvement in mean specificity (85{\%} vs 79{\%}) for the replicated readings compared with single-observer interpretations (P <.05). CONCLUSION: Diagnostic aids such as checklists and paired simultaneous readings did not lead to an improved mean observer performance for experienced readers. However, an increase in the mean specificity occurred with replicated readings.",
keywords = "Diagnostic radiology, observer performance, Images, interpretation, Ovary, CT, Ovary, neoplasms",
author = "Fultz, {Patrick J.} and Jacobs, {Christina V.} and Hall, {W. Jackson} and Ronald Gottlieb and Deborah Rubens and Totterman, {Saara M S} and Steven Meyers and Cynthia Angel and {Del Priore}, Giuseppe and Warshal, {David P.} and Zou, {Kelly H.} and Shapiro, {David E.}",
year = "1999",
month = "8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "212",
pages = "401--410",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ovarian cancer

T2 - Comparison of observer performance for four methods of interpreting CT scans

AU - Fultz, Patrick J.

AU - Jacobs, Christina V.

AU - Hall, W. Jackson

AU - Gottlieb, Ronald

AU - Rubens, Deborah

AU - Totterman, Saara M S

AU - Meyers, Steven

AU - Angel, Cynthia

AU - Del Priore, Giuseppe

AU - Warshal, David P.

AU - Zou, Kelly H.

AU - Shapiro, David E.

PY - 1999/8

Y1 - 1999/8

N2 - PURPOSE: To assess the effects of four interpretative methods on observers' mean sensitivity and specificity by using computed tomography (CT) of ovarian carcinoma as a model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT scan in 98 patients with ovarian carcinoma and 49 women who were disease free were retrospectively reviewed by four experienced blinded radiologists to compare single-observer reading, single-observer reading with an anatomic checklist, paired-observer reading (simultaneous double reading), and replicated reading (combination of two independent readings). Confidence level scoring was used to identify three possible disease forms in each patient: extranodal tumor, lymphadenopathy, and ascites. Patient conditions were then categorized as abnormal or normal. RESULTS: There were no significant improvements in sensitivity or specificity for classification of patient conditions as abnormal or normal when comparing single-observer interpretation with single- observer interpretation with a checklist or paired-observer interpretation. Although there was no significant improvement in the mean sensitivity (93% vs 94%) by using the replicated reading method, there was a statistically significant improvement in mean specificity (85% vs 79%) for the replicated readings compared with single-observer interpretations (P <.05). CONCLUSION: Diagnostic aids such as checklists and paired simultaneous readings did not lead to an improved mean observer performance for experienced readers. However, an increase in the mean specificity occurred with replicated readings.

AB - PURPOSE: To assess the effects of four interpretative methods on observers' mean sensitivity and specificity by using computed tomography (CT) of ovarian carcinoma as a model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT scan in 98 patients with ovarian carcinoma and 49 women who were disease free were retrospectively reviewed by four experienced blinded radiologists to compare single-observer reading, single-observer reading with an anatomic checklist, paired-observer reading (simultaneous double reading), and replicated reading (combination of two independent readings). Confidence level scoring was used to identify three possible disease forms in each patient: extranodal tumor, lymphadenopathy, and ascites. Patient conditions were then categorized as abnormal or normal. RESULTS: There were no significant improvements in sensitivity or specificity for classification of patient conditions as abnormal or normal when comparing single-observer interpretation with single- observer interpretation with a checklist or paired-observer interpretation. Although there was no significant improvement in the mean sensitivity (93% vs 94%) by using the replicated reading method, there was a statistically significant improvement in mean specificity (85% vs 79%) for the replicated readings compared with single-observer interpretations (P <.05). CONCLUSION: Diagnostic aids such as checklists and paired simultaneous readings did not lead to an improved mean observer performance for experienced readers. However, an increase in the mean specificity occurred with replicated readings.

KW - Diagnostic radiology, observer performance

KW - Images, interpretation

KW - Ovary, CT

KW - Ovary, neoplasms

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032801108&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032801108&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10429697

AN - SCOPUS:0032801108

VL - 212

SP - 401

EP - 410

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 2

ER -