Rühl Ricarda, Wozniak Magdalena M, Werk Michael, Laurent François, Mager Georg, Montaudon Michel, Pattermann Andreas, Scherrer Antoine, Tasu Jean-Pierre, Pech Maciej, Ricke Jens
Universitätsklinikum Magdeburg, Klinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Leipzigerstr. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.
Eur Radiol. 2008 Sep;18(9):1831-9. doi: 10.1007/s00330-008-0945-6. Epub 2008 Apr 19.
To assess both sensitivity and specificity of digital chest radiography alone and in conjunction with dual-exposure dual-energy chest radiography for the detection and classification of pulmonary nodules. One hundred patients with a total of 149 lung nodules (3-45 mm; median, 11 mm) confirmed by CT were included in this study. Dual-exposure dual-energy chest radiographies of each patient were obtained using a CsI detector system. Experienced board-certified chest radiologists from four different medical centers in Europe reviewed standard chest radiographs alone and in conjunction with dual-energy images blinded and in random order. The reviewers rated the probability of presence, calcification and malignancy of all lung nodules on a five-point rating scale. Lesions detected were identified by applying a specific coordinate system to enable precise verification by the study leader. A receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed. In addition to the 149 true-positive CT proven lesions, 236 false-positive lung nodules were described in digital chest radiographies in conjunction with dual-energy chest radiographies. The cumulative sensitivity of chest radiography in conjunction with dual energy was 43%, specificity was 55%. For digital radiography alone, sensitivity was 35% and specifity was 83%. For the dual energy system, positive predictive value was 58%, and negative predictive value was 66% compared to the digital radiography with a positive predictive value of 59% and a negative predictive value of 65%. Areas under the curve in a ROC analysis resulted in 0.631 (95% confidence interval =0.61 to 0.65) for radiography with dual energy and 0.602 (95% confidence interval =0.58 to 0.63) for digital radiography alone. This difference was not statistically significant. For the detection of lesion calcification or the determination of malignancy, ROC analysis also failed to show significant differences. CsI-based flat-panel dual-exposure dual-energy imaging added to standard chest radiography did not show statistically significant improvement for the detection of pulmonary nodules, nor the identification of calcifications, nor the determination of malignancy.
评估单纯数字胸部X线摄影以及联合双曝光双能量胸部X线摄影用于检测和分类肺结节的敏感性和特异性。本研究纳入了100例经CT证实共有149个肺结节(3 - 45毫米;中位数为11毫米)的患者。使用碘化铯探测器系统获取每位患者的双曝光双能量胸部X线摄影。来自欧洲四个不同医疗中心的经验丰富的经委员会认证的胸部放射科医生,对标准胸部X线摄影单独以及联合双能量图像进行盲法和随机顺序的评估。评估者根据五点评分量表对所有肺结节的存在概率、钙化情况和恶性程度进行评分。通过应用特定的坐标系来确定检测到的病变,以便研究负责人进行精确核实。进行了受试者操作特征(ROC)分析。除了149个经CT证实的真阳性病变外,在数字胸部X线摄影联合双能量胸部X线摄影中还描述了236个假阳性肺结节。胸部X线摄影联合双能量的累积敏感性为43%,特异性为55%。对于单纯数字摄影,敏感性为35%,特异性为83%。对于双能量系统,阳性预测值为58%,阴性预测值为66%;相比之下,数字摄影的阳性预测值为59%,阴性预测值为65%。ROC分析中的曲线下面积,双能量摄影为0.631(95%置信区间 = 0.61至0.65),单纯数字摄影为0.602(95%置信区间 = 0.58至0.63)。这种差异无统计学意义。对于病变钙化的检测或恶性程度的判定,ROC分析也未显示出显著差异。添加到标准胸部X线摄影中的基于碘化铯的平板双曝光双能量成像,在肺结节检测、钙化识别或恶性程度判定方面均未显示出统计学上的显著改善。