1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Qatar Medical Journal
  4. Volume 2019, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 2019, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0253-8253
  • EISSN: 2227-0426

Abstract

We aimed to report and compare accuracy, reproducibility, and reporting confidence between thoracic dual-energy subtraction (DES) and routine posterior–anterior chest radiography (PA-CR) techniques. We obtained DES (D1–D4) images from 96 patients using DES and a high-resolution dynamic flat-panel detector in combination. We compared the DES images of these patients with their PA-CR images. The maximum time interval between performing DES and PA-CR was nine weeks. Two radiologists evaluated abnormal findings on DES and PA-CR images using a three-point scale, and reporting confidence was scored using a four-point scale. The intra- and interobserver agreement values of the scores were analyzed. Further, the radiation exposure doses during PA-CR and DES acquisitions were calculated. The intra- and interobserver agreement values of PA-CR and DES images were good. The reporting confidence scores for DES were generally higher than those for PA-CR. Between bone-subtracted (D3) and soft-tissue-subtracted (D4) images, the former was more successful and useful in the evaluation of bone structures, whereas the latter was better in the evaluation of consolidation and/or solitary nodules. DES has the potential to improve the accuracy, reproducibility, and reporting confidence of thoracic radiography. It also has the potential to provide a better diagnosis of chest pathologies using relatively low dose radiation.

© 2019 Gezer, Algin, Durmaz, Arslan, licensee HBKU Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2019.9
2019-09-20
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/qmj/2019/1/qmj.2019.9.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2019.9&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Schalekamp S, van Ginneken B, Karssemeijer N, Schaefer-Prokop CM. Chest radiography: new technological developments and their applications. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2014 Feb; 35:1:3–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Xu T, Ducote JL, Wong JT, Molloi S. Dynamic dual-energy chest radiography: a potential tool for lung tissue motion monitoring and kinetic study. Phys Med Biol. 2011 Feb 21; 56:4:1191–1205.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Algin O, Gökalp G, Topal U. Signs in chest imaging. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2011 Mar; 17:1:18–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Schaefer-Prokop C, Neitzel U, Venema HW, Uffmann M, Prokop M. Digital chest radiography: an update on modern technology, dose containment and control of image quality. Eur Radiol. 2008 Sep; 18:9:1818–1830.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. McAdams HP, Samei E, Dobbins J III, Tourassi GD, Ravin CE. Recent advances in chest radiography. Radiology. 2006 Dec; 241:3:663–683.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Tanaka R, Sanada S, Matsui T, Hayashi N, Matsui O. Sequential dual-energy subtraction technique with a dynamic flat-panel detector (FPD): primary study for image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). Radiol Phys Technol. 2008 Jul; 1:2:144–150.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Shkumat NA. High-performance dual-energy imaging with a flat-panel detector [dissertation] . Toronto: University of Toronto 2008.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Macmahon H, Li F, Engelmann R, Roberts R, Armato S. Dual energy subtraction and temporal subtraction chest radiography. J Thorac Imaging. 2008 May; 23:2:77–85.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Gilkeson RC, Sachs PB. Dual energy subtraction digital radiography: technical considerations, clinical applications, and imaging pitfalls. J Thorac Imaging. 2006 Nov; 21:4:303–313.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Vock P, Zsolt SF. Dual energy subtraction: principles and clinical applications. Eur J Radiol. 2009 Nov; 72:2:231–237.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Gomi T, Koshida K, Miyati T, Miyagawa J, Hirano H. An experimental comparison of flat-panel detector performance for direct and indirect systems (initial experiences and physical evaluation). J Digit Imaging. 2006 Dec; 19:4:362–370.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Samei E, Flynn MJ. An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems. Med Phys. 2003 Apr; 30:4:608–622.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Niklason LT, Chan HP, Cascade PN, Chang CL, Chee PW, Mathews JF. Portable chest imaging: comparison of storage phosphor digital, asymmetric screen-film and conventional screen-film systems. Radiology. 1993 Feb; 186:2:387–393.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Rühl R, Wozniak MM, Werk M, Laurent F, Mager G, Montaudon M, Pattermann A, Scherrer A, Tasu JP, Pech M, Ricke J. CsI-detector-based dual-exposure dual energy in chest radiography for lung nodule detection: results of an international multicenter trial. Eur Radiol. 2008 Sep; 18:9:1831–1839.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Swensen SJ, Gray JE, Brown LR, Aughenbaugh GL, Harms GF, Stears J. A new asimetric screen-film combination for conventional chest radiography: evaluation in 50 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993 Mar; 160:3:483–486.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Tagashira H, Arakawa K, Yoshimoto M. Detectability of lung nodules using flat panel detector with dual energy subtraction by two shot method: evaluation by ROC method. Eur J Radiol. 2007 Nov; 64:2:279–284.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Del Ciello A, Franchi P, Contegiacomo A, Cicchetti G, Bonomo L, Larici AR. Missed lung cancer: when, where, and why? Diagn Interv Radiol. 2017 Mar; 23:2:118–126.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Austin JHM, Romney BM, Goldsmith LS. Missed bronchogenic carcinoma: radiographicfindings in 27 patients with potentially resectable lesion evident inretrospect. Radiology. 1992 Jan; 182:1:15–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Uemura M, Miyagawa M, Yasuhara Y, Murakami T, Ikura H, Sakamoto K, et al.  Clinical evaluation of pulmonary nodules with dual-exposure dual-energy subtraction chest radiography. Radiat Med. 2005 Sep; 23:6:391–397.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Ricke J, Fischbach F, Freund T, Teichgräber U, Hänninen EL, Röttgen R, et al.  Clinical results of CSI-detector-based dual exposure dual energy in chest radiography. Eur Radiol. 2003 Dec; 13:12:2577–2582.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Kuhlman JE, Collins J, Brooks GN, Yandow DR, Broderick SL. Dual-energy subtraction chest radiography: what to look for beyond calcified nodules. Radiographics. 2006 Jan-Feb; 26:1:79–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Martini K, Baessler M, Baumueller S, Frauenfelder T. Diagnostic accuracy and added value of dual-energy subtraction radiography compared to standard conventional radiography using computed tomography as standard of reference. PLoS One. 2017 Mar 16; 12:3:e0174285.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Manji F, Wang J, Norman G, Wang Z, Koff D. Comparison of dual energy subtraction chest radiography and traditional chest X-rays in the detection of pulmonary nodules. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2016 Feb; 6:1:1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2019.9
Loading
Efficiency and reporting confidence analysis of sequential dual-energy subtraction for thoracic x-ray examinations
Qatar Medical Journal 2019, 9 (2019); https://doi.org/10.5339/qmj.2019.9
/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2019.9
/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2019.9
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): chest radiography, computed tomography, Direct digital radiography, dose, dual-energy subtraction and thorax

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error