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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |