OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of digital tomosynthesis (DTS) on the radiological investigation of patients with suspected pulmonary lesions on chest radiography (CXR). METHODS: Three hundred thirty-nine patients (200 male; age, 71.19 ± 11.9 years) with suspected pulmonary lesion(s) on CXR underwent DTS. Two readers prospectively analysed CXR and DTS images, and recorded their diagnostic confidence: 1 or 2 = definite or probable benign lesion or pseudolesion deserving no further diagnostic workup; 3 = indeterminate; 4 or 5 = probable or definite pulmonary lesion deserving further diagnostic workup by computed tomography (CT). Imaging follow-up by CT (n = 76 patients), CXR (n = 256) or histology (n = 7) was the reference standard. RESULTS: DTS resolved doubtful CXR findings in 256/339 (76 %) patients, while 83/339 (24 %) patients proceeded to CT. The mean interpretation time for DTS (mean ± SD, 220 ± 40 s) was higher (P < 0.05; Wilcoxon test) than for CXR (110 ± 30 s), but lower than CT (600 ± 150 s). Mean effective dose was 0.06 mSv (range 0.03-0.1 mSv) for CXR, 0.107 mSv (range 0.094-0.12 mSv) for DTS, and 3 mSv (range 2-4 mSv) for CT. CONCLUSIONS: DTS avoided the need for CT in about three-quarters of patients with a slight increase in the interpretation time and effective dose compared to CXR.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of digital tomosynthesis (DTS) on the radiological investigation of patients with suspected pulmonary lesions on chest radiography (CXR). METHODS: Three hundred thirty-nine patients (200 male; age, 71.19 ± 11.9 years) with suspected pulmonary lesion(s) on CXR underwent DTS. Two readers prospectively analysed CXR and DTS images, and recorded their diagnostic confidence: 1 or 2 = definite or probable benign lesion or pseudolesion deserving no further diagnostic workup; 3 = indeterminate; 4 or 5 = probable or definite pulmonary lesion deserving further diagnostic workup by computed tomography (CT). Imaging follow-up by CT (n = 76 patients), CXR (n = 256) or histology (n = 7) was the reference standard. RESULTS:DTS resolved doubtful CXR findings in 256/339 (76 %) patients, while 83/339 (24 %) patients proceeded to CT. The mean interpretation time for DTS (mean ± SD, 220 ± 40 s) was higher (P < 0.05; Wilcoxon test) than for CXR (110 ± 30 s), but lower than CT (600 ± 150 s). Mean effective dose was 0.06 mSv (range 0.03-0.1 mSv) for CXR, 0.107 mSv (range 0.094-0.12 mSv) for DTS, and 3 mSv (range 2-4 mSv) for CT. CONCLUSIONS:DTS avoided the need for CT in about three-quarters of patients with a slight increase in the interpretation time and effective dose compared to CXR.
Authors: David M Hansell; Alexander A Bankier; Heber MacMahon; Theresa C McLoud; Nestor L Müller; Jacques Remy Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-01-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: David S Gierada; Thomas K Pilgram; Melissa Ford; Richard M Fagerstrom; Timothy R Church; Hrudaya Nath; Kavita Garg; Diane C Strollo Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-11-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sara A Asplund; Åse A Johnsson; Jenny Vikgren; Angelica Svalkvist; Agneta Flinck; Marianne Boijsen; Valeria A Fisichella; Lars Gunnar Månsson; Magnus Båth Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: James T Dobbins; H Page McAdams; John M Sabol; Dev P Chakraborty; Ella A Kazerooni; Gautham P Reddy; Jenny Vikgren; Magnus Båth Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 11.105