Comparison of chest radiography, chest digital tomosynthesis and low dose MDCT to detect small ground-glass opacity nodules: an anthropomorphic chest phantom study

Kyung Won Doo, Eun-Young Kang, Hwan-Seok Yong, Soo Youn Ham, Ki Yeol Lee, Ji Yung Choo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of chest radiography (CXR), chest digital tomosynthesis (DT) and low dose multidetector computed tomography (LDCT) for the detection of small pulmonary ground-glass opacity (GGO) nodules, using an anthropomorphic chest phantom.

Methods: Artificial pulmonary nodules were placed in a phantom and a total of 40 samples of different nodule settings underwent CXR, DT and LDCT. The images were randomly read by three experienced chest radiologists. Free-response receiver-operating characteristics (FROC) were used.

Results: The figures of merit for the FROC curves averaged for the three observers were 0.41, 0.37 and 0.76 for CXR, DT and LDCT, respectively. FROC analyses revealed significantly better performance of LDCT over CXR or DT for the detection of GGO nodules (P < 0.05). The difference in detectability between CXR and DT was not statistically significant (P = 0.73).

Conclusion: The diagnostic performance of DT for the detection of pulmonary small GGO nodules was not significantly different from that of CXR, but LDCT performed significantly better than both CXR and DT. DT is not a suitable alternative to CT for small GGO nodule detection, and LDCT remains the method of choice for this purpose.

Key Points: • For GGO nodule detection, DT was not significantly different from CXR.

• DT is not a suitable alternative to CT for GGO nodule detection.

• LDCT is the method of choice for GGO nodule detection.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3269-3276
Number of pages8
JournalEuropean Radiology
Volume24
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Radiographic Image Enhancement
Multidetector Computed Tomography
Glass
Thorax
ROC Curve
Lung
Radiography

Keywords

  • Computed tomography
  • Digital tomosynthesis
  • Pulmonary nodule
  • Radiography
  • Thoracic imaging

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

@article{6ea12496fe6e4f1694969101ce7b479d,
title = "Comparison of chest radiography, chest digital tomosynthesis and low dose MDCT to detect small ground-glass opacity nodules: an anthropomorphic chest phantom study",
abstract = "Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of chest radiography (CXR), chest digital tomosynthesis (DT) and low dose multidetector computed tomography (LDCT) for the detection of small pulmonary ground-glass opacity (GGO) nodules, using an anthropomorphic chest phantom.Methods: Artificial pulmonary nodules were placed in a phantom and a total of 40 samples of different nodule settings underwent CXR, DT and LDCT. The images were randomly read by three experienced chest radiologists. Free-response receiver-operating characteristics (FROC) were used.Results: The figures of merit for the FROC curves averaged for the three observers were 0.41, 0.37 and 0.76 for CXR, DT and LDCT, respectively. FROC analyses revealed significantly better performance of LDCT over CXR or DT for the detection of GGO nodules (P < 0.05). The difference in detectability between CXR and DT was not statistically significant (P = 0.73).Conclusion: The diagnostic performance of DT for the detection of pulmonary small GGO nodules was not significantly different from that of CXR, but LDCT performed significantly better than both CXR and DT. DT is not a suitable alternative to CT for small GGO nodule detection, and LDCT remains the method of choice for this purpose.Key Points: • For GGO nodule detection, DT was not significantly different from CXR.• DT is not a suitable alternative to CT for GGO nodule detection.• LDCT is the method of choice for GGO nodule detection.",
keywords = "Computed tomography, Digital tomosynthesis, Pulmonary nodule, Radiography, Thoracic imaging",
author = "Doo, {Kyung Won} and Eun-Young Kang and Hwan-Seok Yong and Ham, {Soo Youn} and Lee, {Ki Yeol} and Choo, {Ji Yung}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00330-014-3376-6",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "3269--3276",
journal = "European Radiology",
issn = "0938-7994",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of chest radiography, chest digital tomosynthesis and low dose MDCT to detect small ground-glass opacity nodules

T2 - an anthropomorphic chest phantom study

AU - Doo, Kyung Won

AU - Kang, Eun-Young

AU - Yong, Hwan-Seok

AU - Ham, Soo Youn

AU - Lee, Ki Yeol

AU - Choo, Ji Yung

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of chest radiography (CXR), chest digital tomosynthesis (DT) and low dose multidetector computed tomography (LDCT) for the detection of small pulmonary ground-glass opacity (GGO) nodules, using an anthropomorphic chest phantom.Methods: Artificial pulmonary nodules were placed in a phantom and a total of 40 samples of different nodule settings underwent CXR, DT and LDCT. The images were randomly read by three experienced chest radiologists. Free-response receiver-operating characteristics (FROC) were used.Results: The figures of merit for the FROC curves averaged for the three observers were 0.41, 0.37 and 0.76 for CXR, DT and LDCT, respectively. FROC analyses revealed significantly better performance of LDCT over CXR or DT for the detection of GGO nodules (P < 0.05). The difference in detectability between CXR and DT was not statistically significant (P = 0.73).Conclusion: The diagnostic performance of DT for the detection of pulmonary small GGO nodules was not significantly different from that of CXR, but LDCT performed significantly better than both CXR and DT. DT is not a suitable alternative to CT for small GGO nodule detection, and LDCT remains the method of choice for this purpose.Key Points: • For GGO nodule detection, DT was not significantly different from CXR.• DT is not a suitable alternative to CT for GGO nodule detection.• LDCT is the method of choice for GGO nodule detection.

AB - Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of chest radiography (CXR), chest digital tomosynthesis (DT) and low dose multidetector computed tomography (LDCT) for the detection of small pulmonary ground-glass opacity (GGO) nodules, using an anthropomorphic chest phantom.Methods: Artificial pulmonary nodules were placed in a phantom and a total of 40 samples of different nodule settings underwent CXR, DT and LDCT. The images were randomly read by three experienced chest radiologists. Free-response receiver-operating characteristics (FROC) were used.Results: The figures of merit for the FROC curves averaged for the three observers were 0.41, 0.37 and 0.76 for CXR, DT and LDCT, respectively. FROC analyses revealed significantly better performance of LDCT over CXR or DT for the detection of GGO nodules (P < 0.05). The difference in detectability between CXR and DT was not statistically significant (P = 0.73).Conclusion: The diagnostic performance of DT for the detection of pulmonary small GGO nodules was not significantly different from that of CXR, but LDCT performed significantly better than both CXR and DT. DT is not a suitable alternative to CT for small GGO nodule detection, and LDCT remains the method of choice for this purpose.Key Points: • For GGO nodule detection, DT was not significantly different from CXR.• DT is not a suitable alternative to CT for GGO nodule detection.• LDCT is the method of choice for GGO nodule detection.

KW - Computed tomography

KW - Digital tomosynthesis

KW - Pulmonary nodule

KW - Radiography

KW - Thoracic imaging

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84911805659&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84911805659&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00330-014-3376-6

DO - 10.1007/s00330-014-3376-6

M3 - Article

C2 - 25097138

AN - SCOPUS:84911805659

VL - 24

SP - 3269

EP - 3276

JO - European Radiology

JF - European Radiology

SN - 0938-7994

IS - 12

ER -