OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of the computer-aided detection (CAD) system and thin-slab maximum intensity projection (MIP) technique in the detection of pulmonary nodules at multidetector computed tomography (CT) in patients who underwent metastatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board and patients' informed consent was waived. Forty-nine consecutive patients who underwent pulmonary metastatectomy were enrolled. Four chest radiologists analyzed preoperative 1-mm section CT images and recorded the locus of each nodule candidate. Afterward, they reevaluated the images once using CAD software and once with thin-slab MIP given the results of 1-mm section CT alone. The reference standard for nodule presence was established by a consensus panel and pathologic records for malignant nodules. RESULTS: A total of 514 nodules were identified by a consensus panel. Of 212 nodules surgically removed, 121 nodules were malignant. The sensitivity of each observer in detecting malignant nodules with thin-section CT scans alone was 91%, 88%, 87%, and 86% for observers A- to D, respectively. With CAD, sensitivity increased significantly to 95%, 95%, 94%, and 95% (P< 0.05 for observer B-D), and using MIP increased to 94%, 96%, 91%, and 92% (P < 0.05 for observer B-D), respectively. There were no significant differences in sensitivity between CAD and MIP for the detection of malignant nodules. The average number of false-positive findings per patient was 0.8 with thin-section CT alone, 1.1 with CAD, and 1.4 with MIP. CONCLUSIONS: In candidates for metastatectomy, reading with the aid of either CAD or MIP significantly improved the detection of malignant nodules compared with using thin-section CT alone.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of the computer-aided detection (CAD) system and thin-slab maximum intensity projection (MIP) technique in the detection of pulmonary nodules at multidetector computed tomography (CT) in patients who underwent metastatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board and patients' informed consent was waived. Forty-nine consecutive patients who underwent pulmonary metastatectomy were enrolled. Four chest radiologists analyzed preoperative 1-mm section CT images and recorded the locus of each nodule candidate. Afterward, they reevaluated the images once using CAD software and once with thin-slab MIP given the results of 1-mm section CT alone. The reference standard for nodule presence was established by a consensus panel and pathologic records for malignant nodules. RESULTS: A total of 514 nodules were identified by a consensus panel. Of 212 nodules surgically removed, 121 nodules were malignant. The sensitivity of each observer in detecting malignant nodules with thin-section CT scans alone was 91%, 88%, 87%, and 86% for observers A- to D, respectively. With CAD, sensitivity increased significantly to 95%, 95%, 94%, and 95% (P< 0.05 for observer B-D), and using MIP increased to 94%, 96%, 91%, and 92% (P < 0.05 for observer B-D), respectively. There were no significant differences in sensitivity between CAD and MIP for the detection of malignant nodules. The average number of false-positive findings per patient was 0.8 with thin-section CT alone, 1.1 with CAD, and 1.4 with MIP. CONCLUSIONS: In candidates for metastatectomy, reading with the aid of either CAD or MIP significantly improved the detection of malignant nodules compared with using thin-section CT alone.
Authors: Luca Bogoni; Jane P Ko; Jeffrey Alpert; Vikram Anand; John Fantauzzi; Charles H Florin; Chi Wan Koo; Derek Mason; William Rom; Maria Shiau; Marcos Salganicoff; David P Naidich Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Chara E Rydzak; Samuel G Armato; Ricardo S Avila; James L Mulshine; David F Yankelevitz; David S Gierada Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-10-27 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Kyung Nyeo Jeon; Jin Mo Goo; Chang Hyun Lee; Youkyung Lee; Ji Yung Choo; Nyoung Keun Lee; Mi-Suk Shim; In Sun Lee; Kwang Gi Kim; David S Gierada; Kyongtae T Bae Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: M Krüger; N Zinne; H Shin; R Zhang; C Biancosino; I Kropivnitskaja; F Länger; A Haverich; S Dettmer Journal: Chirurg Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 0.955
Authors: Douglas E Wood; Ella A Kazerooni; Scott L Baum; George A Eapen; David S Ettinger; Lifang Hou; David M Jackman; Donald Klippenstein; Rohit Kumar; Rudy P Lackner; Lorriana E Leard; Inga T Lennes; Ann N C Leung; Samir S Makani; Pierre P Massion; Peter Mazzone; Robert E Merritt; Bryan F Meyers; David E Midthun; Sudhakar Pipavath; Christie Pratt; Chakravarthy Reddy; Mary E Reid; Arnold J Rotter; Peter B Sachs; Matthew B Schabath; Mark L Schiebler; Betty C Tong; William D Travis; Benjamin Wei; Stephen C Yang; Kristina M Gregory; Miranda Hughes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Kyung Hee Lee; Jin Mo Goo; Sang Min Lee; Chang Min Park; Young Eun Bahn; Hyungjin Kim; Yong Sub Song; Eui Jin Hwang Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2015-02-27 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Yun Jung Bae; Byung Se Choi; Kyung Mi Lee; Yeon Hong Yoon; Leonard Sunwoo; Cheolkyu Jung; Jae Hyoung Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2017-05-19 Impact factor: 3.500