Jay Mandrekar | PubMed Health

PubMed2007

Polyp measurement with CT colonography: multiple-reader, multiple-workstation comparison.

OBJECTIVE: The risk of invasive colorectal cancer in colorectal polyps correlates with lesion size. Our purpose was to define the most accurate methods for measuring polyp size at CT colonography (CTC) using three models of workstations and multiple observers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six reviewers measured 24 unique polyps of known size (5, 7, 10, and 12 mm), shape (sessile, flat, and pedunculated), and location (straight or curved bowel segment) using CTC data sets obtained at two doses (5 mAs and 65 mAs) and a previously described colonic phantom model. Reviewers measured the largest diameter of polyps on three proprietary workstations. Each polyp was measured with lung and soft-tissue windows on axial, 2D multiplanar reconstruction (MPR), and 3D images. RESULTS: There were significant differences among measurements obtained at various settings within each workstation (p < 0.0001). Measurements on 2D images were more accurate with lung window than with soft-tissue window settings (p < 0.0001). For the 65-mAs data set, the most accurate measurements were obtained in analysis of axial images with lung window, 2D MPR images with lung window, and 3D tissue cube images for Wizard, Advantage, and Vitrea workstations, respectively, without significant differences in accuracy among techniques (0.11 < p < 0.59). The mean absolute error values for these optimal settings were 0.48 mm, 0.61 mm, and 0.76 mm, respectively, for the three workstations. Within the ultralow-dose 5-mAs data set the best methods for Wizard, Advantage, and Vitrea were axial with lung window, 2D MPR with lung window, and 2D MPR with lung window, respectively. Use of nearly all measurement methods, except for the Vitrea 3D tissue cube and the Wizard 2D MPR with lung window, resulted in undermeasurement of the true size of the polyps. CONCLUSION: Use of CTC computer workstations facilitates accurate polyp measurement. For routine CTC examinations, polyps should be measured with lung window settings on 2D axial or MPR images (Wizard and Advantage) or 3D images (Vitrea). When these optimal methods are used, these three commercial workstations do not differ significantly in acquisition of accurate polyp measurements at routine dose settings.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2006

ROC study of four LCD displays under typical medical center lighting conditions.

Nine observers reviewed a previously assembled library of 320 chest computed radiography (CR) images. Observers participated in four sessions, reading a different 1/4 of the sample on each of four liquid crystal displays: a 2-megapixel (MP) consumer color display, a 2-MP business color display, a 2-MP medical-grade gray display, and a 3-MP gray display. Each display was calibrated according to the DICOM Part 14 standard. The viewing application required observer log-in, then randomized the order of the subsample seen on the display, and timed the responses of the observer to render a 1-5 judgment on the absence or presence of ILD on chest CRs. Selections of 1-2 were considered negative, 3 was indeterminate, and 4-5 were positive. The order of viewing sessions was also randomized for each observer. The experiment was conducted under controlled lighting, temperature, and sound conditions to mimic conditions typically found in a patient examination room. Lighting was indirect, and illuminance at the display face was 195 +/- 8% lux and was monitored over the course of the experiment. The average observer sensitivity for the 2 MP color consumer, 2 MP business color, 2 MP gray, and 3 MP gray displays were 83.7%, 84.1%, 85.5%, and 86.7%, respectively. The only pairwise significant difference was between the 2-MP consumer color and the 2-MP gray (P = 0.05). Effect of order within a session was not significant (P = 0.21): period 1 (84.3%), period 2 (86.2%), period 3 (85.4%), period 4 (84.1%). Observer specificity for the various displays was not statistically significant (P = 0.21). Finally, a timing analysis showed no significant difference between the displays for the user group (P = 0.13), ranging from 5.3 s (2 MP color business) to 5.9 s (3 MP Gray). There was, however, a reduction in time over the study that was significant (P < 0.001) for all users; the group average decreased from 6.5 to 4.7 s per image. Physical measurements of the resolution, contrast, and noise properties of the displays were acquired. Most notably, the noise of the displays varied by 3.5x between the lowest and highest noise displays. Differences in display noise were indicative of observer performance. However, the large difference in the magnitude of the noise was not predictive of the small difference (3%) in the observer sensitivity for various displays. This is likely because detection of interstitial lung disease is limited by "anatomical noise" rather than display or x-ray image noise.

Artifacts↗