4.7 Article

Clinical results of CsI-detector-based dual-exposure dual energy in chest radiography

Journal

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue 12, Pages 2577-2582

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-003-1913-9

Keywords

dual energy; chest radiography; digital detector radiography; pulmonary nodule

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of digital chest radiography alone with digital chest radiography combined with dual-energy chest radiography in the detection of small non-calcified pulmonary nodules. Standard and dual-energy radiographs were obtained with a flat-panel digital chest system. Four radiologists reviewed digital posteroanterior chest radiographs in random order either alone or in conjunction with dual-energy soft tissue and bone images. Twenty patients with a total of 59 pulmonary nodules (median 0.5 cm, range 0.3 - 2.5 cm) confirmed by computed tomography (HU less than or equal to100) were included. A level of confidence for each diagnosis was documented using a rating scale of 1-5. Brunner and Langer's test was performed for statistical analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed for nodules greater than 1 cm, 1-0.5 cm, and <0.5 cm. For posteroanterior chest radiography, sensitivity was 33%, positive predictive value 83%, specificity 81%, and negative predictive value 30%. Review in conjunction with dual-energy images resulted in a sensitivity of 42%, positive predictive value 88%, specificity 85%, and negative predictive value 34%. The increase of nodule detection overall as well as for different size categories was significant (p<0.05). The increase of the confidence level rating was also significant (p<0.001). Dual energy added to standard posteroanterior chest radiography significantly improves the sensitivity, specificity, and confidence in detection of small non-calcified pulmonary nodules.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available