Joon-Il Choi1, Seung Eun Jung2, Pyo Nyun Kim1, Sang Hoon Cha1, Jae Kwan Jun1, Hoo-Yeon Lee1, Eun-Cheol Park1. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul St Mary's Hospital, School of Medicine, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea (J.-I.C., S.E.J.); Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea (P.N.K.); Department of Radiology, Ansan Hospital, College of Medicine, Korea University, Ansan-si, Korea (S.H.C.); National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang-si, Korea (J.K.J.); Department of Social Medicine, College of Medicine, Dankook University, Cheonan-si, Korea (H.-Y.L.); and Department of Preventive Medicine and Institute of Health Services Research, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea (E.-C.P.). 2. Department of Radiology, Seoul St Mary's Hospital, School of Medicine, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea (J.-I.C., S.E.J.); Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea (P.N.K.); Department of Radiology, Ansan Hospital, College of Medicine, Korea University, Ansan-si, Korea (S.H.C.); National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang-si, Korea (J.K.J.); Department of Social Medicine, College of Medicine, Dankook University, Cheonan-si, Korea (H.-Y.L.); and Department of Preventive Medicine and Institute of Health Services Research, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea (E.-C.P.). sejung@catholic.ac.kr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of ultrasound (US) imaging for hepatocellular carcinoma screening. METHODS: The investigation was performed at all medical institutes participating in the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea. For assessment of personnel, we inquired who was performing the US screenings. For phantom image evaluation, the dead zone, vertical and horizontal measurements, axial and lateral resolution, sensitivity, and gray scale/dynamic range were evaluated. For clinical image evaluation, US images of patients were evaluated in terms of the standard images, technical information, overall image quality, appropriateness of depth, foci, annotations, and the presence of any artifacts. RESULTS: Failure rates for phantom and clinical image evaluations at general hospitals, smaller hospitals, and private clinics were 20.9%, 24.5%, 24.1% and 5.5%, and 14.8% and 9.5%, respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed in the failure rates for the phantom images among groups of different years of manufacture. For the clinical image evaluation, the results of radiologists were significantly better than those of other professional groups (P = .0001 and .0004 versus nonradiology physicians and nonphysicians, respectively). The failure rate was also higher when the storage format was analog versus digital (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 20% of US scanners failed the phantom image evaluation. The year of scanner manufacture was not significantly associated with the results of the phantom image evaluation. The quality of the clinical images obtained by radiologists was the best.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of ultrasound (US) imaging for hepatocellular carcinoma screening. METHODS: The investigation was performed at all medical institutes participating in the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea. For assessment of personnel, we inquired who was performing the US screenings. For phantom image evaluation, the dead zone, vertical and horizontal measurements, axial and lateral resolution, sensitivity, and gray scale/dynamic range were evaluated. For clinical image evaluation, US images of patients were evaluated in terms of the standard images, technical information, overall image quality, appropriateness of depth, foci, annotations, and the presence of any artifacts. RESULTS: Failure rates for phantom and clinical image evaluations at general hospitals, smaller hospitals, and private clinics were 20.9%, 24.5%, 24.1% and 5.5%, and 14.8% and 9.5%, respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed in the failure rates for the phantom images among groups of different years of manufacture. For the clinical image evaluation, the results of radiologists were significantly better than those of other professional groups (P = .0001 and .0004 versus nonradiology physicians and nonphysicians, respectively). The failure rate was also higher when the storage format was analog versus digital (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 20% of US scanners failed the phantom image evaluation. The year of scanner manufacture was not significantly associated with the results of the phantom image evaluation. The quality of the clinical images obtained by radiologists was the best.
Authors: Song Lee; Joon-Il Choi; Michael Yong Park; Dong Myung Yeo; Jae Young Byun; Seung Eun Jung; Sung Eun Rha; Soon Nam Oh; Young Joon Lee Journal: Ultrasonography Date: 2014-02-26
Authors: Chansik An; Do Young Kim; Jin-Young Choi; Kwang Hyub Han; Yun Ho Roh; Myeong-Jin Kim Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 4.430