BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A common task in radiology interpretation is visual comparison of images. The purpose of this study was to compare traditional side-by-side and in-place (flicker) image presentation modes with advanced methods for detecting primary brain tumors on MR imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 66 patients with gliomas and 3 consecutive brain MR imaging examinations (a "triplet"). A display application that presented images in side-by-side mode with or without flicker display as well as display of image subtraction or automated change detection information (also with and without flicker display) was used by 3 board-certified neuroradiologists. They identified regions of brain tumor progression by using this display application. Each case was reviewed using all modes (side-by-side presentation with and without flicker, subtraction with and without flicker, and change detection with and without flicker), with results compared via a panel rating. RESULTS: Automated change detection with or without flicker (P < .0027) as well as subtraction with or without flicker (P < .0027) were more sensitive to tumor progression than side-by-side presentation in cases where all 3 raters agreed. Change detection afforded the highest interrater agreement, followed by subtraction. Clinically determined time to progression was longer for cases rated as nonprogressing by using subtraction images and change-detection images both with and without flicker display mode compared with side-by-side presentation. CONCLUSIONS: Automated change detection and image subtraction, with and without flicker display mode, are superior to side-by-side image comparison.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A common task in radiology interpretation is visual comparison of images. The purpose of this study was to compare traditional side-by-side and in-place (flicker) image presentation modes with advanced methods for detecting primary brain tumors on MR imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 66 patients with gliomas and 3 consecutive brain MR imaging examinations (a "triplet"). A display application that presented images in side-by-side mode with or without flicker display as well as display of image subtraction or automated change detection information (also with and without flicker display) was used by 3 board-certified neuroradiologists. They identified regions of brain tumor progression by using this display application. Each case was reviewed using all modes (side-by-side presentation with and without flicker, subtraction with and without flicker, and change detection with and without flicker), with results compared via a panel rating. RESULTS: Automated change detection with or without flicker (P < .0027) as well as subtraction with or without flicker (P < .0027) were more sensitive to tumor progression than side-by-side presentation in cases where all 3 raters agreed. Change detection afforded the highest interrater agreement, followed by subtraction. Clinically determined time to progression was longer for cases rated as nonprogressing by using subtraction images and change-detection images both with and without flicker display mode compared with side-by-side presentation. CONCLUSIONS: Automated change detection and image subtraction, with and without flicker display mode, are superior to side-by-side image comparison.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Bradley J Erickson; Julia Patriarche; Christopher Wood; Norbert Campeau; E Paul Lindell; Vladimir Savcenko; Norman Arslanlar; Liqin Wang Journal: Cancer Inform Date: 2007-05-12
Authors: I Leng Tan; Ronald A van Schijndel; Franz Fazekas; Massimo Filippi; Peter Freitag; David H Miller; Tarek A Yousry; Petra J W Pouwels; Herman J Adèr; Frederik Barkhof Journal: J Neurol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Daniel Forsberg; Amit Gupta; Christopher Mills; Brett MacAdam; Beverly Rosipko; Barbara A Bangert; Michael D Coffey; Christos Kosmas; Jeffrey L Sunshine Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2016-11-26 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Rebecca A Packer; John H Rossmeisl; Michael S Kent; John F Griffin; Christina Mazcko; Amy K LeBlanc Journal: Vet Radiol Ultrasound Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 1.363
Authors: Matthew J Kuhn; Julia W Patriarche; Douglas Patriarche; Miles A Kirchin; Massimo Bona; Gianpaolo Pirovano Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2021-10-12