DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Digital Tomosynthesis for PNS Evaluation: Comparisons of Patient Exposure and Image Quality with Plain Radiography

  • Yoo, Jin-Young (Department of Radiology, Bundang Jesaeng General Hospital) ;
  • Chung, Myung-Jin (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Choi, Bo-Ram (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Jung, Hye-Na (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Koo, Ji-Hyun (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Bae, Young-A (Department of Radiology, Bundang Jesaeng General Hospital) ;
  • Jeon, Kyeong-Man (Division of Pulmonology, Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Byun, Hong-Sik (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Kyung-Soo (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • Published : 2012.04.01

Abstract

Objective: We investigated low dose digital tomosynthesis (DT) for the evaluation of the paranasal sinus (PNS), and compared its diagnostic accuracy with a PNS radiography series (XR). Materials and Methods: We enrolled 43 patients for whom XR, PNS DT, and OMU CT were performed. We measured effective doses (EDs) of XR, DT, and OMU CT using Monte Carlo simulation software. Two radiologists performed independent observation of both XR and DT. For seven PNSs, they scored anatomic conspicuity of sinuses and confidence on the presence of sinusitis using nine point scales. OMU CT was observed by the third radiologist and the findings were regarded as reference standard. We compared scores for conspicuity and sinusitis confidence between XR and DT. Results: Mean EDs were $29{\pm}6\;{\mu}Sv$, $48{\pm}10\;{\mu}Sv$, and $980{\pm}250\;{\mu}Sv$, respectively, for XR, DT, and CT. Mean scores for conspicuity were 6.3 and 7.4, respectively, for XR and DT. Sensitivity per patient basis for si usitis detection were 52% and 96%, respectively, for XR and DT in observer 1 (p = 0.001) and 80% and 92% for observer 2 (p = 0.25). Specificities for sinusitis exclusion were 100% for both XR and DT for observer 1 and 89% and 100% for observer 2 (p = 0.50). Accuracies for sinusitis diagnosis were 72% and 98%, respectively, for XR and DT for observer 1 (p = 0.001) and 84% and 95% for observer 2 (p = 0.125). Conclusion: Patient radiation dose from low dose DT is comparable with that of PNS XR. Diagnostic sensitivity of DT for sinusitis was superior to PNS XR.

Keywords

References

  1. Dobbins JT 3rd, Godfrey DJ. Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential. Phys Med Biol 2003;48:R65-R106 https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/48/19/R01
  2. Grant DG. Tomosynthesis: a three-dimensional radiographic imaging technique. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1972;19:20-28
  3. Johnsson AA, Vikgren J, Svalkvist A, Zachrisson S, Flinck A, Boijsen M, et al. Overview of two years of clinical experience of chest tomosynthesis at Sahlgrenska University Hospital. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010;139:124-129 https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncq059
  4. Dobbins JT 3rd, McAdams HP. Chest tomosynthesis: technical principles and clinical update. Eur J Radiol 2009;72:244-251 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.05.054
  5. Dobbins JT 3rd, McAdams HP, Godfrey DJ, Li CM. Digital tomosynthesis of the chest. J Thorac Imaging 2008;23:86-92 https://doi.org/10.1097/RTI.0b013e318173e162
  6. Vikgren J, Zachrisson S, Svalkvist A, Johnsson AA, Boijsen M, Flinck A, et al. Comparison of chest tomosynthesis and chest radiography for detection of pulmonary nodules: human observer study of clinical cases. Radiology 2008;249:1034- 1041 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2492080304
  7. James TD, McAdams HP, Song JW, Li CM, Godfrey DJ, DeLong DM, et al. Digital tomosynthesis of the chest for lung nodule detection: interim sensitivity results from an ongoing NIHsponsored trial. Med Phys 2008;35:2554-2557 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2937277
  8. Sharifian H, Sharif Kashani S, Mazaher H, Abhari M. Assessment of the accuracy of paranasal sinuses limited CT scans in the diagnosis of Sinusitis. Iran J Radiol 2006;3:225- 228
  9. Leibovitch I, Goldberg RA, Selva D. Paranasal sinus inflammation and non-specific orbital inflammatory syndrome: an uncommon association. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2006;244:1391-1397 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-006-0312-8
  10. Roberts DN, Hampal S, East CA, Lloyd GA. The diagnosis of inflammatory sinonasal disease. J Laryngol Otol 1995;109:27- 30
  11. Robinson KE. Roentgenographic manifestations of benign paranasal disease. Ear Nose Throat J 1984;63:144-149
  12. Dolan KD. Paranasal sinus radiology, Part 3A: sphenoidal sinus. Head Neck Surg 1982;5:164-176 https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.2890050212
  13. White PS, Cowan IA, Robertson MS. Limited CT scanning techniques of the paranasal sinuses. J Laryngol Otol 1991;105:20-23 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215100114720
  14. Wippold FJ 2nd, Levitt RG, Evens RG, Korenblat PE, Hodges FJ 3rd, Jost RG. Limited coronal CT: an alternative screening examination for sinonasal inflammatory disease. Allergy Proc 1995;16:165-169 https://doi.org/10.2500/108854195778666801
  15. White PS, Robinson JM, Stewart IA, Doyle T. Computerized tomography mini-series: an alternative to standard paranasal sinus radiographs. Aust N Z J Surg 1990;60:25-29 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.1990.tb07348.x
  16. Sabol JM. A Monte Carlo estimation of effective dose in chest tomosynthesis. Med Phys 2009;36:5480-5487 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3250907
  17. Huda W, Ogden KM, Khorasani MR. Converting dose-length product to effective dose at CT. Radiology 2008;248:995-1003 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2483071964
  18. Baldwin P. Digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiol Technol 2009;81:57M-74M
  19. Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C, Baldan E, Bezzon E, La Grassa M, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 2010;20:1545-1553 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1699-5
  20. Michell M, Wasan R, Whelehan P, Iqbal A, Lawinski C, Donaldson A, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a comparison of the accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis, two-dimensional digital mammography and two-dimensional screening mammography (film-screen). Breast Cancer Res 2009;11 Suppl 2:O1 https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2365
  21. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, Perrin RL, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:586-591 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.2031
  22. Schulz-Wendtland R, Fuchsjager M, Wacker T, Hermann KP. Digital mammography: an update. Eur J Radiol 2009;72:258- 265 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.05.052
  23. Duryea J, Dobbins JT 3rd, Lynch JA. Digital tomosynthesis of hand joints for arthritis assessment. Med Phys 2003;30:325- 333 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1543573
  24. Zachrisson S, Vikgren J, Svalkvist A, Johnsson AA, Boijsen M, Flinck A, et al. Effect of clinical experience of chest tomosynthesis on detection of pulmonary nodules. Acta Radiol 2009;50:884-891 https://doi.org/10.1080/02841850903085584
  25. Tingberg A. X-ray tomosynthesis: a review of its use for breast and chest imaging. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010;139:100-107 https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncq099
  26. Lewin JM, Niklason L. Advanced applications of digital mammography: tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Semin Roentgenol 2007;42:243-252 https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ro.2007.06.006
  27. Bakic PR, Carton AK, Kontos D, Zhang C, Troxel AB, Maidment AD. Breast percent density: estimation on digital mammograms and central tomosynthesis projections. Radiology 2009;252:40-49 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2521081621
  28. Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA, van Tinteren H, Rutgers EJ, Muller SH, et al. Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 2010;20:16-24 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1523-2
  29. Zhang J, Wu QJ, Godfrey DJ, Fatunase T, Marks LB, Yin FF. Comparing digital tomosynthesis to cone-beam CT for position verification in patients undergoing partial breast irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;73:952-957 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.10.036
  30. Kim EY, Chung MJ, Lee HY, Koh WJ, Jung HN, Lee KS. Pulmonary mycobacterial disease: diagnostic performance of low-dose digital tomosynthesis as compared with chest radiography. Radiology 2010;257:269-277 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100303
  31. Dobbins JT 3rd. Tomosynthesis imaging: at a translational crossroads. Med Phys 2009;36:1956-1967 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3120285
  32. Taourel P, Merigeaud S, Aubert E, Millet I, Curros Doyon F, Lacroix J, et al. [Tomosynthesis: luxury or necessity?]. J Radiol 2009;90:1813-1821 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0221-0363(09)73587-5

Cited by

  1. Digital Tomosynthesis of the Chest: Comparison of Patient Exposure Dose and Image Quality between Standard Default Setting and Low Dose Setting vol.14, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2013.14.3.525
  2. An interview with Won Moon vol.18, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1590/s2176-94512013000300005
  3. Total aplasia of the paranasal sinuses vol.4, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.2500/ar.2013.4.0056
  4. Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation? vol.17, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.706
  5. Radiation Dose Reduction in Paranasal Sinus CT : With Feasibility of Iterative Reconstruction Technique vol.155, pp.6, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599816664335
  6. Selection and Reporting of Statistical Methods to Assess Reliability of a Diagnostic Test: Conformity to Recommended Methods in a Peer-Reviewed Journal vol.18, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.6.888
  7. Assessment of Maxillary Sinus Wall Thickness with Paranasal Sinus Digital Tomosynthesis and CT vol.76, pp.5, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2017.76.5.314
  8. Image Reconstruction Quality and Parameters in Tomosynthesis vol.52, pp.4, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10527-018-9830-z
  9. Incidence and Radiological Findings of Incidental Sinus Opacifications in Patients Undergoing Septoplasty or Septorhinoplasty vol.129, pp.2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1177/0003489419878453
  10. Digital Tomosynthesis versus Conventional Radiography for Evaluating Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head vol.22, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2021.0058
  11. Nasal Septal Deviation and Incidental Paranasal Sinus Opacification: A Role of Computed Tomography vol.28, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.18787/jr.2020.00334