Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Dec;31(12):9664-9674.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08074-7. Epub 2021 Jun 4.

AI-based improvement in lung cancer detection on chest radiographs: results of a multi-reader study in NLST dataset

Affiliations

AI-based improvement in lung cancer detection on chest radiographs: results of a multi-reader study in NLST dataset

Hyunsuk Yoo et al. Eur Radiol. 2021 Dec.

Abstract

Objective: Assess if deep learning-based artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm improves reader performance for lung cancer detection on chest X-rays (CXRs).

Methods: This reader study included 173 images from cancer-positive patients (n = 98) and 346 images from cancer-negative patients (n = 196) selected from National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Eight readers, including three radiology residents, and five board-certified radiologists, participated in the observer performance test. AI algorithm provided image-level probability of pulmonary nodule or mass on CXRs and a heatmap of detected lesions. Reader performance was compared with AUC, sensitivity, specificity, false-positives per image (FPPI), and rates of chest CT recommendations.

Results: With AI, the average sensitivity of readers for the detection of visible lung cancer increased for residents, but was similar for radiologists compared to that without AI (0.61 [95% CI, 0.55-0.67] vs. 0.72 [95% CI, 0.66-0.77], p = 0.016 for residents, and 0.76 [95% CI, 0.72-0.81] vs. 0.76 [95% CI, 0.72-0.81, p = 1.00 for radiologists), while false-positive findings per image (FPPI) was similar for residents, but decreased for radiologists (0.15 [95% CI, 0.11-0.18] vs. 0.12 [95% CI, 0.09-0.16], p = 0.13 for residents, and 0.24 [95% CI, 0.20-0.29] vs. 0.17 [95% CI, 0.13-0.20], p < 0.001 for radiologists). With AI, the average rate of chest CT recommendation in patients positive for visible cancer increased for residents, but was similar for radiologists (54.7% [95% CI, 48.2-61.2%] vs. 70.2% [95% CI, 64.2-76.2%], p < 0.001 for residents and 72.5% [95% CI, 68.0-77.1%] vs. 73.9% [95% CI, 69.4-78.3%], p = 0.68 for radiologists), while that in cancer-negative patients was similar for residents, but decreased for radiologists (11.2% [95% CI, 9.6-13.1%] vs. 9.8% [95% CI, 8.0-11.6%], p = 0.32 for residents and 16.4% [95% CI, 14.7-18.2%] vs. 11.7% [95% CI, 10.2-13.3%], p < 0.001 for radiologists).

Conclusions: AI algorithm can enhance the performance of readers for the detection of lung cancers on chest radiographs when used as second reader.

Key points: • Reader study in the NLST dataset shows that AI algorithm had sensitivity benefit for residents and specificity benefit for radiologists for the detection of visible lung cancer. • With AI, radiology residents were able to recommend more chest CT examinations (54.7% vs 70.2%, p < 0.001) for patients with visible lung cancer. • With AI, radiologists recommended significantly less proportion of unnecessary chest CT examinations (16.4% vs. 11.7%, p < 0.001) in cancer-negative patients.

Keywords: Artificial intelligence; Computer-assisted radiographic image interpretation; Lung cancer; Mass screening; Radiography.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. McComb BL, Chung JH, Crabtree TD et al (2016) ACR Appropriateness Criteria® routine chest radiography. J Thorac Imaging 31:W13–W15. https://doi.org/10.1097/RTI.0000000000000200 - DOI - PubMed
    1. de Groot PM, Carter BW, Abbott GF, Wu CC (2015) Pitfalls in chest radiographic interpretation: blind spots. Semin Roentgenol 50:197–209. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ro.2015.01.008 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gavelli G, Giampalma E (2000) Sensitivity and specificity of chest X-ray screening for lung cancer. Cancer 89:2453–2456. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604351 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Austin JH, Romney BM, Goldsmith LS (1992) Missed bronchogenic carcinoma: radiographic findings in 27 patients with a potentially resectable lesion evident in retrospect. Radiology 182:115–122. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.182.1.1727272 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aberle DR, DeMello S, Berg CD et al (2013) Results of the two incidence screenings in the National Lung Screening Trial. N Engl J Med 369:920–931. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1208962 - DOI - PubMed - PMC

LinkOut - more resources