Literature DB >> 18849504

Comparison of chest tomosynthesis and chest radiography for detection of pulmonary nodules: human observer study of clinical cases.

Jenny Vikgren1, Sara Zachrisson, Angelica Svalkvist, Ase A Johnsson, Marianne Boijsen, Agneta Flinck, Susanne Kheddache, Magnus Båth.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare chest tomosynthesis with chest radiography in the detection of pulmonary nodules by using multidetector computed tomography (CT) as the reference method.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Regional Ethical Review Board approved this study, and all participants gave informed consent. Four thoracic radiologists acted as observers in a jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC) study conducted in 42 patients with and 47 patients without pulmonary nodules examined with chest tomosynthesis and chest radiography. Multidetector CT served as reference method. The observers marked suspected nodules on the images by using a four-point rating scale for the confidence of presence. The JAFROC figure of merit was used as the measure of detectability. The number of lesion localizations relative to the total number of lesions (lesion localization fraction [LLF]) and the number of nonlesion localizations relative to the total number of cases (nonlesion localization fraction [NLF]) were determined.
RESULTS: Performance of chest tomosynthesis was significantly better than that of chest radiography with regard to detectability (F statistic = 32.7, df = 1, 34.8, P < .0001). For tomosynthesis, the LLF for the smallest nodules (< or = 4 mm) was 0.39 and increased with an increase in size to an LLF for the largest nodules (> 8 mm) of 0.83. The LLF for radiography was small, except for the largest nodules, for which it was 0.52. In total, the LLF was three times higher for tomosynthesis. The NLF was approximately 50% higher for tomosynthesis.
CONCLUSION: For the detection of pulmonary nodules, the performance of chest tomosynthesis is better, with increased sensitivity especially for nodules smaller than 9 mm, than that of chest radiography. RSNA, 2008

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18849504     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2492080304

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  61 in total

1.  Automated lung segmentation in digital chest tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Jiahui Wang; James T Dobbins; Qiang Li
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Comparison between chest digital tomosynthesis and CT as a screening method to detect artificial pulmonary nodules: a phantom study.

Authors:  T Gomi; M Nakajima; H Fujiwara; T Takeda; K Saito; T Umeda; K Sakaguchi
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Sensitivity of Thoracic Digital Tomosynthesis (DTS) for the Identification of Lung Nodules.

Authors:  Steve G Langer; Brian D Graner; Beth A Schueler; Kenneth A Fetterly; James M Kofler; Jayawant N Mandrekar; Brian J Bartholmai
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  A comparison of digital tomosynthesis and chest radiography in evaluating airway lesions using computed tomography as a reference.

Authors:  Ji Yung Choo; Ki Yeol Lee; Ami Yu; Je-Hyeong Kim; Seung Heon Lee; Jung Won Choi; Eun-Young Kang; Yu Whan Oh
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-12-11       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  A dual-view digital tomosynthesis imaging technique for improved chest imaging.

Authors:  Yuncheng Zhong; Chao-Jen Lai; Tianpeng Wang; Chris C Shaw
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Reporting instructions significantly impact false positive rates when reading chest radiographs.

Authors:  John W Robinson; Patrick C Brennan; Claudia Mello-Thoms; Sarah J Lewis
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-01-15       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Analysis of the impact of digital tomosynthesis on the radiological investigation of patients with suspected pulmonary lesions on chest radiography.

Authors:  Emilio Quaia; Elisa Baratella; Stefano Cernic; Arianna Lorusso; Federica Casagrande; Vincenzo Cioffi; Maria Assunta Cova
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  The effect of averaging adjacent planes for artifact reduction in matrix inversion tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Devon J Godfrey; H Page McAdams; James T Dobbins
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 9.  Comparison of digital tomosynthesis and chest radiography for the detection of pulmonary nodules: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jun H Kim; Kyung H Lee; Kyoung-Tae Kim; Hyun J Kim; Hyeong S Ahn; Yeo J Kim; Ha Y Lee; Yong S Jeon
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  A status report on free-response analysis.

Authors:  D P Chakraborty
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2010-01-18       Impact factor: 0.972

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.