Maurizio Grosso1, Roberto Priotto1, Donatella Ghirardo1, Alberto Talenti1, Emanuele Roberto2, Luca Bertolaccini3, Alberto Terzi4, Stéphane Chauvie5. 1. Radiology Department, Santa Croce e Carle Hospital, Cuneo, Italy. 2. Medical Physics Division, Santa Croce e Carle Hospital, Cuneo, Italy. 3. Department of Thoracic Surgery, AUSL Romagna Teaching Hospital, Ravenna, Italy. 4. Thoracic Surgery Division, Don Calabria Cancer Care Center, Negrar, Italy. 5. Medical Physics Division, Santa Croce e Carle Hospital, Cuneo, Italy. chauvie.s@ospedale.cuneo.it.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the lung nodules' detection of digital tomosynthesis (DTS) and computed tomography (CT) in the context of the SOS (Studio OSservazionale) prospective screening program for lung cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and thirty-two of the 1843 subjects enrolled in the SOS study underwent CT because non-calcified nodules with diameters larger than 5 mm and/or multiple nodules were present in DTS. Two expert radiologists reviewed the exams classifying the nodules based on their radiological appearance and their dimension. LUNG-RADS classification was applied to compare receiver operator characteristics curve between CT and DTS with respect to final diagnosis. CT was used as gold standard. RESULTS: DTS and CT detected 208 and 179 nodules in the 132 subjects, respectively. Of these 208 nodules, 189 (91%) were solid, partially solid, and ground glass opacity. CT confirmed 140/189 (74%) of these nodules but found 4 nodules that were not detected by DTS. DTS and CT were concordant in 62% of the cases applying the 5-point LUNG-RADS scale. The concordance rose to 86% on a suspicious/non-suspicious binary scale. The areas under the curve in receiver operator characteristics were 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.94) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.72-0.89) for CT and DTS, respectively. The mean effective dose was 0.09 ± 0.04 mSv for DTS and 4.90 ± 1.20 mSv for CT. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a common classification for nodule detection in DTS and CT helps in comparing the two technologies. DTS detected and correctly classified 74% of the nodules seen by CT but lost 4 nodules identified by CT. Concordance between DTS and CT rose to 86% of the nodules when considering LUNG-RADS on a binary scale.
PURPOSE: To compare the lung nodules' detection of digital tomosynthesis (DTS) and computed tomography (CT) in the context of the SOS (Studio OSservazionale) prospective screening program for lung cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and thirty-two of the 1843 subjects enrolled in the SOS study underwent CT because non-calcified nodules with diameters larger than 5 mm and/or multiple nodules were present in DTS. Two expert radiologists reviewed the exams classifying the nodules based on their radiological appearance and their dimension. LUNG-RADS classification was applied to compare receiver operator characteristics curve between CT and DTS with respect to final diagnosis. CT was used as gold standard. RESULTS:DTS and CT detected 208 and 179 nodules in the 132 subjects, respectively. Of these 208 nodules, 189 (91%) were solid, partially solid, and ground glass opacity. CT confirmed 140/189 (74%) of these nodules but found 4 nodules that were not detected by DTS. DTS and CT were concordant in 62% of the cases applying the 5-point LUNG-RADS scale. The concordance rose to 86% on a suspicious/non-suspicious binary scale. The areas under the curve in receiver operator characteristics were 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.94) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.72-0.89) for CT and DTS, respectively. The mean effective dose was 0.09 ± 0.04 mSv for DTS and 4.90 ± 1.20 mSv for CT. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a common classification for nodule detection in DTS and CT helps in comparing the two technologies. DTS detected and correctly classified 74% of the nodules seen by CT but lost 4 nodules identified by CT. Concordance between DTS and CT rose to 86% of the nodules when considering LUNG-RADS on a binary scale.
Entities:
Keywords:
Digital tomosynthesis; Lung cancer; Lung nodule detection
Authors: Frederick J Larke; Randell L Kruger; Christopher H Cagnon; Michael J Flynn; Michael M McNitt-Gray; Xizeng Wu; Phillip F Judy; Dianna D Cody Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Heber MacMahon; John H M Austin; Gordon Gamsu; Christian J Herold; James R Jett; David P Naidich; Edward F Patz; Stephen J Swensen Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-11 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