BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to investigate whether deep bone suppression imaging (BSI) could increase the diagnostic performance for solitary pulmonary nodule detection compared with digital tomosynthesis (DTS), dual-energy subtraction (DES) radiography, and conventional chest radiography (CCR). METHODS: A total of 256 patients (123 with a solitary pulmonary nodule, 133 with normal findings) were included in the study. The confidence score of 6 observers determined the presence or absence of pulmonary nodules in each patient. These were first analyzed using a CCR image, then with CCR plus deep BSI, then with CCR plus DES radiography, and finally with DTS images. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were used to evaluate the performance of the 6 observers in the detection of pulmonary nodules. RESULTS: For the 6 observers, the average area under the curve improved significantly from 0.717 with CCR to 0.848 with CCR plus deep BSI (P<0.01), 0.834 with CCR plus DES radiography (P<0.01), and 0.939 with DTS (P<0.01). Comparisons between CCR and CCR plus deep BSI found that the sensitivities of the assessments by the 3 residents increased from 53.2% to 69.5% (P=0.014) for nodules located in the upper lung field, from 30.6% to 44.6% (P=0.015) for nodules that were partially/completely obscured by the bone, and from 33.2% to 45.8% (P=0.006) for nodules <10 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The deep BSI technique can significantly increase the sensitivity of radiology residents for solitary pulmonary nodules compared with CCR. Increased detection was seen mainly for smaller nodules, nodules with partial/complete obscuration, and nodules located in the upper lung field. 2021 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to investigate whether deep bone suppression imaging (BSI) could increase the diagnostic performance for solitary pulmonary nodule detection compared with digital tomosynthesis (DTS), dual-energy subtraction (DES) radiography, and conventional chest radiography (CCR). METHODS: A total of 256 patients (123 with a solitary pulmonary nodule, 133 with normal findings) were included in the study. The confidence score of 6 observers determined the presence or absence of pulmonary nodules in each patient. These were first analyzed using a CCR image, then with CCR plus deep BSI, then with CCR plus DES radiography, and finally with DTS images. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were used to evaluate the performance of the 6 observers in the detection of pulmonary nodules. RESULTS: For the 6 observers, the average area under the curve improved significantly from 0.717 with CCR to 0.848 with CCR plus deep BSI (P<0.01), 0.834 with CCR plus DES radiography (P<0.01), and 0.939 with DTS (P<0.01). Comparisons between CCR and CCR plus deep BSI found that the sensitivities of the assessments by the 3 residents increased from 53.2% to 69.5% (P=0.014) for nodules located in the upper lung field, from 30.6% to 44.6% (P=0.015) for nodules that were partially/completely obscured by the bone, and from 33.2% to 45.8% (P=0.006) for nodules <10 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The deep BSI technique can significantly increase the sensitivity of radiology residents for solitary pulmonary nodules compared with CCR. Increased detection was seen mainly for smaller nodules, nodules with partial/complete obscuration, and nodules located in the upper lung field. 2021 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone suppression; digital tomosynthesis; dual-energy subtraction; solitary pulmonary nodules
Authors: Feng Li; Roger Engelmann; Lorenzo L Pesce; Kunio Doi; Charles E Metz; Heber Macmahon Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Jonathan D Clapp; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Zsolt Szucs-Farkas; Alexander Schick; Jennifer L Cullmann; Lukas Ebner; Boglarka Megyeri; Peter Vock; Andreas Christe Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Ronald D Novak; Nicholas J Novak; Robert Gilkeson; Bahar Mansoori; Gunhild E Aandal Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Steven Schalekamp; Bram van Ginneken; Inge A H van den Berk; Ieneke J C Hartmann; Miranda M Snoeren; Arlette E Odink; Winnifred van Lankeren; Sjoert A H Pegge; Laura J Schijf; Nico Karssemeijer; Cornelia M Schaefer-Prokop Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-10-03 Impact factor: 3.240