Cargando…

Clinical acceptance testing and scanner comparison of ultrasound shear wave elastography

Because of the rapidly growing use of ultrasound shear wave elastography (SWE) in clinical practices, there is a significant need for development of clinical physics performance assessment methods for this technology. This study aims to report two clinical medical physicists’ tasks: (a) acceptance t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Long, Zaiyang, Tradup, Donald J., Song, Pengfei, Stekel, Scott F., Chen, Shigao, Glazebrook, Katrina N., Hangiandreou, Nicholas J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5978380/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29542277
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12310
_version_ 1783327521535688704
author Long, Zaiyang
Tradup, Donald J.
Song, Pengfei
Stekel, Scott F.
Chen, Shigao
Glazebrook, Katrina N.
Hangiandreou, Nicholas J.
author_facet Long, Zaiyang
Tradup, Donald J.
Song, Pengfei
Stekel, Scott F.
Chen, Shigao
Glazebrook, Katrina N.
Hangiandreou, Nicholas J.
author_sort Long, Zaiyang
collection PubMed
description Because of the rapidly growing use of ultrasound shear wave elastography (SWE) in clinical practices, there is a significant need for development of clinical physics performance assessment methods for this technology. This study aims to report two clinical medical physicists’ tasks: (a) acceptance testing (AT) of SWE function on ten commercial ultrasound systems for clinical liver application and (b) comparison of SWE measurements of targets across vendors for clinical musculoskeletal application. For AT, ten GE LOGIQ E9 XDclear 2.0 scanners with ten C1‐6‐D and ten 9L‐D transducers were studied using two commercial homogenous phantoms. Five measurements were acquired at two depths for each scanner/transducer pair by two operators. Additional tests were performed to access effects of different coupling media, phantom locations and operators. System deviations were less than 5% of group mean or three times standard deviation; therefore, all systems passed AT. A test protocol was provided based on results that no statistically significant difference was observed between using ultrasound gel and salt water for coupling, among different phantom locations, and that interoperator and intraoperator coefficient of variation was less than 3%. For SWE target measurements, two systems were compared — a Supersonic Aixplorer scanner with a SL10‐2 and a SL15‐4 transducer, and an abovementioned GE scanner with 9L‐D transducer. Two stepped cylinders with diameters of 4.05–10.40 mm were measured both longitudinally and transaxially. Target shear wave speed quantification was performed using an in‐house MATLAB program. Using the target shear wave speed deduced from phantom specs as a reference, SL15‐4 performed the best at the measured depth. However, it was challenging to reliably measure a 4.05 mm target for either system. The reported test methods and results could provide important information when dealing with SWE‐related tasks in the clinical environment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5978380
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59783802018-06-01 Clinical acceptance testing and scanner comparison of ultrasound shear wave elastography Long, Zaiyang Tradup, Donald J. Song, Pengfei Stekel, Scott F. Chen, Shigao Glazebrook, Katrina N. Hangiandreou, Nicholas J. J Appl Clin Med Phys Medical Imaging Because of the rapidly growing use of ultrasound shear wave elastography (SWE) in clinical practices, there is a significant need for development of clinical physics performance assessment methods for this technology. This study aims to report two clinical medical physicists’ tasks: (a) acceptance testing (AT) of SWE function on ten commercial ultrasound systems for clinical liver application and (b) comparison of SWE measurements of targets across vendors for clinical musculoskeletal application. For AT, ten GE LOGIQ E9 XDclear 2.0 scanners with ten C1‐6‐D and ten 9L‐D transducers were studied using two commercial homogenous phantoms. Five measurements were acquired at two depths for each scanner/transducer pair by two operators. Additional tests were performed to access effects of different coupling media, phantom locations and operators. System deviations were less than 5% of group mean or three times standard deviation; therefore, all systems passed AT. A test protocol was provided based on results that no statistically significant difference was observed between using ultrasound gel and salt water for coupling, among different phantom locations, and that interoperator and intraoperator coefficient of variation was less than 3%. For SWE target measurements, two systems were compared — a Supersonic Aixplorer scanner with a SL10‐2 and a SL15‐4 transducer, and an abovementioned GE scanner with 9L‐D transducer. Two stepped cylinders with diameters of 4.05–10.40 mm were measured both longitudinally and transaxially. Target shear wave speed quantification was performed using an in‐house MATLAB program. Using the target shear wave speed deduced from phantom specs as a reference, SL15‐4 performed the best at the measured depth. However, it was challenging to reliably measure a 4.05 mm target for either system. The reported test methods and results could provide important information when dealing with SWE‐related tasks in the clinical environment. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-03-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5978380/ /pubmed/29542277 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12310 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Medical Imaging
Long, Zaiyang
Tradup, Donald J.
Song, Pengfei
Stekel, Scott F.
Chen, Shigao
Glazebrook, Katrina N.
Hangiandreou, Nicholas J.
Clinical acceptance testing and scanner comparison of ultrasound shear wave elastography
title Clinical acceptance testing and scanner comparison of ultrasound shear wave elastography
title_full Clinical acceptance testing and scanner comparison of ultrasound shear wave elastography
title_fullStr Clinical acceptance testing and scanner comparison of ultrasound shear wave elastography
title_full_unstemmed Clinical acceptance testing and scanner comparison of ultrasound shear wave elastography
title_short Clinical acceptance testing and scanner comparison of ultrasound shear wave elastography
title_sort clinical acceptance testing and scanner comparison of ultrasound shear wave elastography
topic Medical Imaging
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5978380/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29542277
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12310
work_keys_str_mv AT longzaiyang clinicalacceptancetestingandscannercomparisonofultrasoundshearwaveelastography
AT tradupdonaldj clinicalacceptancetestingandscannercomparisonofultrasoundshearwaveelastography
AT songpengfei clinicalacceptancetestingandscannercomparisonofultrasoundshearwaveelastography
AT stekelscottf clinicalacceptancetestingandscannercomparisonofultrasoundshearwaveelastography
AT chenshigao clinicalacceptancetestingandscannercomparisonofultrasoundshearwaveelastography
AT glazebrookkatrinan clinicalacceptancetestingandscannercomparisonofultrasoundshearwaveelastography
AT hangiandreounicholasj clinicalacceptancetestingandscannercomparisonofultrasoundshearwaveelastography