Dachman Abraham H, Schumm Phil, Heckel Beth, Yoshida Hiroyuki, LaRiviere Patrick
Department of Radiology, MC 2026, University of Chicago, 5841 S Maryland Ave., Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004 Nov;183(5):1349-53. doi: 10.2214/ajr.183.5.1831349.
CT colonography studies to date have used a standard CT algorithm. To determine whether nonstandard algorithms may result in better performance of CT colonography, we conducted a prospective, blinded-observer study of the effect of the reconstruction algorithm on the conspicuity of colonic polyps and folds.
CT colonography of patients with proven polyps, masses, or polypoid folds was performed on an MDCT scanner, and the images were reconstructed using the standard, soft, lung, and detail algorithms. Two experiments were performed. The first used four patient data sets of a short segment of colon (30-60 images), each reconstructed using all four algorithms and then viewed on a workstation in a four-on-one format that allowed all four reconstructions to be viewed simultaneously. The second used six sets of cut-film images (four or eight images each); images within each set differed only in the reconstruction algorithm used to generate them (eight-image sets were prepared with two different level settings). Twenty-one reviewers with varying levels of experience who were unaware of the purpose of the study were asked to rank the images within each set according to their value in the detection of either polyps or masses.
Reviewers showed statistically significant differences in preference for the four algorithms (p = 0.037 in the computer-based experiment; for the cut-film experiment, p = 0.029 for the four-image sets and p = 0.041 for the eight-image sets). In the computer-based experiment, reviewers preferred the detail algorithm to the standard algorithm with an estimated probability of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.75) and the soft algorithm over the standard algorithm with an estimated probability of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.51-0.66). However, reviewers with the most experience (having interpreted at least 250 cases) preferred the soft algorithm over the standard algorithm by the same two-to-one margin as observed for the detail algorithm. In contrast, the standard and detail algorithms were ranked similarly in the cut-film experiment, with the soft and lung algorithms ranked worst.
To our knowledge, ours is the first observer study on the effect of the reconstruction algorithm on conspicuity of folds and polyps in CT colonography. Our results indicate significant differences in the reconstruction algorithms, with the soft and detail algorithms being preferred over the standard algorithm by experienced reviewers when interpreting images on a workstation. These results indicate the need for further research into the effect of reconstruction algorithms on CT colonography.
迄今为止,CT结肠成像研究一直使用标准CT算法。为了确定非标准算法是否能使CT结肠成像表现更佳,我们针对重建算法对结肠息肉和褶皱显示清晰度的影响开展了一项前瞻性、观察者盲法研究。
对已证实患有息肉、肿块或息肉样褶皱的患者进行MDCT扫描以获取CT结肠成像,并使用标准、软组织、肺组织和细节算法重建图像。进行了两项实验。第一项实验使用了四段结肠短节段的患者数据集(30 - 60幅图像),每段数据集均使用所有四种算法进行重建,然后在工作站上以四合一的格式查看,这样可以同时查看所有四种重建图像。第二项实验使用了六组胶片截图(每组四幅或八幅图像);每组内的图像仅在用于生成它们的重建算法上有所不同(八幅图像的组是在两种不同的级别设置下准备的)。邀请了21名经验水平各异且不知晓研究目的的审阅者,让他们根据每组图像在检测息肉或肿块方面的价值对图像进行排序。
审阅者对四种算法的偏好存在统计学显著差异(在基于计算机的实验中p = 0.037;对于胶片截图实验,四幅图像组的p = 0.029,八幅图像组的p = 0.041)。在基于计算机的实验中,审阅者更倾向于细节算法而非标准算法,估计概率为0.67(95%置信区间[CI],0.57 - 0.75),更倾向于软组织算法而非标准算法,估计概率为0.59(95% CI,0.51 - 0.66)。然而,经验最丰富(已解读至少250例病例)的审阅者更倾向于软组织算法而非标准算法,其比例与细节算法相同,为二比一。相比之下,在胶片截图实验中,标准算法和细节算法的排名相近,软组织算法和肺组织算法排名最差。
据我们所知,我们的研究是第一项关于重建算法对CT结肠成像中褶皱和息肉显示清晰度影响的观察者研究。我们的结果表明重建算法存在显著差异,在工作站上解读图像时,经验丰富的审阅者更倾向于软组织算法和细节算法而非标准算法。这些结果表明有必要进一步研究重建算法对CT结肠成像的影响。