Cargando…

Effectiveness of one-shot dual-energy subtraction chest radiography with flat-panel detector in distinguishing between calcified and non-calcified nodules

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the added value of the soft tissue image obtained by the one-shot dual-energy subtraction (DES) method using a flat-panel detector compared with the standard image alone in distinguishing calcified from non-calcified nodules on chest radiographs. We evaluate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Minato, Kojiro, Yamazaki, Motohiko, Yagi, Takuya, Hirata, Tetsuhiro, Tominaga, Masaki, You, Kyoryoku, Ishikawa, Hiroyuki
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10260954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37308582
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-36785-y
_version_ 1785057869979189248
author Minato, Kojiro
Yamazaki, Motohiko
Yagi, Takuya
Hirata, Tetsuhiro
Tominaga, Masaki
You, Kyoryoku
Ishikawa, Hiroyuki
author_facet Minato, Kojiro
Yamazaki, Motohiko
Yagi, Takuya
Hirata, Tetsuhiro
Tominaga, Masaki
You, Kyoryoku
Ishikawa, Hiroyuki
author_sort Minato, Kojiro
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was to evaluate the added value of the soft tissue image obtained by the one-shot dual-energy subtraction (DES) method using a flat-panel detector compared with the standard image alone in distinguishing calcified from non-calcified nodules on chest radiographs. We evaluated 155 nodules (48 calcified and 107 non-calcified) in 139 patients. Five radiologists (readers 1 − 5) with 26, 14, 8, 6 and 3 years of experience, respectively, evaluated whether the nodules were calcified using chest radiography. CT was used as the gold standard of calcification and non-calcification. Accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were compared between analyses with and without soft tissue images. The misdiagnosis ratio (false positive plus false negative ratios) when nodules and bones overlapped was also examined. The accuracy of all radiologists increased after adding soft tissue images (readers 1 − 5: 89.7% vs. 92.3% [P = 0.206], 83.2% vs. 87.7% [P = 0.178], 79.4% vs. 92.3% [P < 0.001], 77.4% vs. 87.1% [P = 0.007], and 63.2% vs. 83.2% [P < 0.001], respectively). AUCs for all the readers improved, except for reader 2 (readers 1 − 5: 0.927 vs. 0.937 [P = 0.495], 0.853 vs. 0.834 [P = 0.624], 0.825 vs. 0.878 [P = 0.151], 0.808 vs. 0.896 [P < 0.001], and 0.694 vs. 0.846 [P < 0.001], respectively). The misdiagnosis ratio for nodules that overlapped with the bone decreased after adding soft tissue images in all readers (11.5% vs. 7.6% [P = 0.096], 17.6% vs. 12.2% [P = 0.144], 21.4% vs. 7.6% [P < 0.001], 22.1% vs. 14.5% [P = 0.050] and 35.9% vs. 16.0% [P < 0.001], respectively), particularly that of readers 3 − 5. In conclusion, the soft tissue images obtained using one-shot DES with a flat-panel detector have added value in distinguishing calcified from non-calcified nodules on chest radiographs, especially for less experienced radiologists.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10260954
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102609542023-06-15 Effectiveness of one-shot dual-energy subtraction chest radiography with flat-panel detector in distinguishing between calcified and non-calcified nodules Minato, Kojiro Yamazaki, Motohiko Yagi, Takuya Hirata, Tetsuhiro Tominaga, Masaki You, Kyoryoku Ishikawa, Hiroyuki Sci Rep Article The purpose of this study was to evaluate the added value of the soft tissue image obtained by the one-shot dual-energy subtraction (DES) method using a flat-panel detector compared with the standard image alone in distinguishing calcified from non-calcified nodules on chest radiographs. We evaluated 155 nodules (48 calcified and 107 non-calcified) in 139 patients. Five radiologists (readers 1 − 5) with 26, 14, 8, 6 and 3 years of experience, respectively, evaluated whether the nodules were calcified using chest radiography. CT was used as the gold standard of calcification and non-calcification. Accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were compared between analyses with and without soft tissue images. The misdiagnosis ratio (false positive plus false negative ratios) when nodules and bones overlapped was also examined. The accuracy of all radiologists increased after adding soft tissue images (readers 1 − 5: 89.7% vs. 92.3% [P = 0.206], 83.2% vs. 87.7% [P = 0.178], 79.4% vs. 92.3% [P < 0.001], 77.4% vs. 87.1% [P = 0.007], and 63.2% vs. 83.2% [P < 0.001], respectively). AUCs for all the readers improved, except for reader 2 (readers 1 − 5: 0.927 vs. 0.937 [P = 0.495], 0.853 vs. 0.834 [P = 0.624], 0.825 vs. 0.878 [P = 0.151], 0.808 vs. 0.896 [P < 0.001], and 0.694 vs. 0.846 [P < 0.001], respectively). The misdiagnosis ratio for nodules that overlapped with the bone decreased after adding soft tissue images in all readers (11.5% vs. 7.6% [P = 0.096], 17.6% vs. 12.2% [P = 0.144], 21.4% vs. 7.6% [P < 0.001], 22.1% vs. 14.5% [P = 0.050] and 35.9% vs. 16.0% [P < 0.001], respectively), particularly that of readers 3 − 5. In conclusion, the soft tissue images obtained using one-shot DES with a flat-panel detector have added value in distinguishing calcified from non-calcified nodules on chest radiographs, especially for less experienced radiologists. Nature Publishing Group UK 2023-06-12 /pmc/articles/PMC10260954/ /pubmed/37308582 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-36785-y Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Minato, Kojiro
Yamazaki, Motohiko
Yagi, Takuya
Hirata, Tetsuhiro
Tominaga, Masaki
You, Kyoryoku
Ishikawa, Hiroyuki
Effectiveness of one-shot dual-energy subtraction chest radiography with flat-panel detector in distinguishing between calcified and non-calcified nodules
title Effectiveness of one-shot dual-energy subtraction chest radiography with flat-panel detector in distinguishing between calcified and non-calcified nodules
title_full Effectiveness of one-shot dual-energy subtraction chest radiography with flat-panel detector in distinguishing between calcified and non-calcified nodules
title_fullStr Effectiveness of one-shot dual-energy subtraction chest radiography with flat-panel detector in distinguishing between calcified and non-calcified nodules
title_full_unstemmed Effectiveness of one-shot dual-energy subtraction chest radiography with flat-panel detector in distinguishing between calcified and non-calcified nodules
title_short Effectiveness of one-shot dual-energy subtraction chest radiography with flat-panel detector in distinguishing between calcified and non-calcified nodules
title_sort effectiveness of one-shot dual-energy subtraction chest radiography with flat-panel detector in distinguishing between calcified and non-calcified nodules
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10260954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37308582
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-36785-y
work_keys_str_mv AT minatokojiro effectivenessofoneshotdualenergysubtractionchestradiographywithflatpaneldetectorindistinguishingbetweencalcifiedandnoncalcifiednodules
AT yamazakimotohiko effectivenessofoneshotdualenergysubtractionchestradiographywithflatpaneldetectorindistinguishingbetweencalcifiedandnoncalcifiednodules
AT yagitakuya effectivenessofoneshotdualenergysubtractionchestradiographywithflatpaneldetectorindistinguishingbetweencalcifiedandnoncalcifiednodules
AT hiratatetsuhiro effectivenessofoneshotdualenergysubtractionchestradiographywithflatpaneldetectorindistinguishingbetweencalcifiedandnoncalcifiednodules
AT tominagamasaki effectivenessofoneshotdualenergysubtractionchestradiographywithflatpaneldetectorindistinguishingbetweencalcifiedandnoncalcifiednodules
AT youkyoryoku effectivenessofoneshotdualenergysubtractionchestradiographywithflatpaneldetectorindistinguishingbetweencalcifiedandnoncalcifiednodules
AT ishikawahiroyuki effectivenessofoneshotdualenergysubtractionchestradiographywithflatpaneldetectorindistinguishingbetweencalcifiedandnoncalcifiednodules