Jankowski A, Martinelli T, Timsit J F, Brambilla C, Thony F, Coulomb M, Ferretti G
Service Central de Radiologie et d'Imagerie Médicale, CHU Grenoble, BP 217, 38043, Grenoble Cedex 09, France.
Eur Radiol. 2007 Dec;17(12):3148-56. doi: 10.1007/s00330-007-0727-6. Epub 2007 Sep 1.
This study aimed at evaluating the diagnostic benefits of maximum intensity projections (MIP) and a commercially available computed-assisted detection system (CAD) for the detection of pulmonary nodules on MDCT as compared with standard 1-mm images on lung cancer screening material. Thirty subjects were randomly selected from our database. Three radiologists independently reviewed three types of images: axial 1-mm images, axial MIP slabs, and CAD system detections. Two independent experienced chest radiologists decided which were true-positive nodules. Two hundred eighty-five nodules > or =1 mm were identified as true-positive by consensus of two independent chest radiologists. The detection rates of the three independent observers with 1-mm axial images were 22 +/- 4.8%, 30 +/- 5.3%, and 47 +/- 2.8%; with MIP: 33 +/- 5.4%, 39 +/- 5.7%, and 45 +/- 5.8%; and with CAD: 35 +/- 5.6%, 36 +/- 5.6%, and 36 +/- 5.6%. There was a reading technique effect on the observers' sensitivity for nodule detection: sensitivities with MIP were higher than with 1-mm images or CAD for all nodules (F-values = 0.046). For nodules > or =3 mm, readers' sensitivities were higher with 1-mm images or MIP than with CAD (p < 0.0001). CAD was the most and MIP the less time-consuming technique (p < 0.0001). MIP and CAD reduced the number of overlooked small nodules. As MIP is more sensitive and less time consuming than the CAD we used, we recommend viewing MIP and 1-mm images for the detection of pulmonary nodules.
本研究旨在评估最大密度投影(MIP)和一种商用计算机辅助检测系统(CAD)在检测MDCT上的肺结节方面的诊断益处,并与肺癌筛查材料上的标准1毫米图像进行比较。从我们的数据库中随机选择了30名受试者。三名放射科医生独立审查了三种类型的图像:轴向1毫米图像、轴向MIP层面和CAD系统检测结果。两名独立的经验丰富的胸部放射科医生确定哪些是真正的阳性结节。经两名独立胸部放射科医生一致认定,285个直径大于或等于1毫米的结节为真正的阳性结节。三名独立观察者对1毫米轴向图像的检测率分别为22±4.8%、30±5.3%和47±2.8%;对MIP的检测率分别为33±5.4%、39±5.7%和45±5.8%;对CAD的检测率分别为35±5.6%、36±5.6%和36±5.6%。在结节检测方面,观察者的敏感度存在阅片技术效应:对于所有结节,MIP的敏感度高于1毫米图像或CAD(F值=0.046)。对于直径大于或等于3毫米的结节,1毫米图像或MIP的读者敏感度高于CAD(p<0.0001)。CAD是最耗时的技术,MIP是最不耗时的技术(p<0.0001)。MIP和CAD减少了被遗漏的小结节数量。由于MIP比我们使用的CAD更敏感且耗时更少,我们建议在检测肺结节时同时查看MIP和1毫米图像。