Diagnosis of gastric cancers: Comparison of conventional radiography and digital radiography with a 4 million-pixel charge-coupled device

被引:18
作者
Iinuma, G
Ushio, K
Ishikawa, T
Nawano, S
Sekiguchi, R
Satake, M
机构
[1] Natl Canc Ctr Hosp, Dept Diagnost Radiol, Chuo Ku, Tokyo 1040045, Japan
[2] Natl Canc Ctr Hosp E, Dept Diagnost Radiol, Chiba, Japan
关键词
diagnostic radiology; observer performance; gastrointestinal tract; neoplasms; radiography; comparative studies; digital; receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve; stomach;
D O I
10.1148/radiology.214.2.r00fe11497
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
PURPOSE: To evaluate the differences in accuracy and observer performance at conventional radiography and at digital radiography with a 4 million-pixel charge-coupled device (CCD) for the diagnosis of gastric cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study was performed of 225 patients with suspected gastric cancer who were referred to our hospital from January 1997 through February 1997. One hundred twelve patients were examined at conventional radiography and 113 were examined at digital radiography, and 24 and 27 patients had gastric cancer, respectively. Six radiologists interpreted the images, with attention to tumor findings. They were blinded to the clinical details, and their interpretations were rated against those of three other radiologists who examined the patients and who were aware of the clinical information such as endoscopic features and/or histopathologic findings in biopsy specimens. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to compare the differences in observer performance for the diagnosis of gastric cancers at conventional radiography and at digital radiography. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity was 64.6% at conventional radiography versus 75.3% at digital radiography (P = .287); specificities were 84.5% and 90.5%, respectively (P = .011); and the positive predictive values were 53.1% and 71.3%, respectively (P = .036). ROC analysis clearly showed higher diagnostic performance at digital radiography than at conventional radiography. CONCLUSION: The data demonstrate the high diagnostic value of digital radiography with a 4 million-pixel CCD for gastric cancers. The technique has considerable potential as an alternative to conventional gastrointestinal radiography.
引用
收藏
页码:497 / 502
页数:6
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]   RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC ANALYSIS OF FRACTURE AND PNEUMONIA DETECTION - COMPARISON OF LASER-DIGITIZED WORKSTATION IMAGES AND CONVENTIONAL ANALOG RADIOGRAPHS [J].
ACKERMAN, SJ ;
GITLIN, JN ;
GAYLER, RW ;
FLAGLE, CD ;
BRYAN, RN .
RADIOLOGY, 1993, 186 (01) :263-268
[2]   DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY OF THE GASTROINTESTINAL-TRACT [J].
FECZKO, PJ ;
ACKERMAN, LV ;
KASTAN, DJ ;
HALPERT, RD .
GASTROINTESTINAL RADIOLOGY, 1988, 13 (03) :191-196
[3]   DIGITAL SUBTRACTION ANGIOGRAPHY - OVERVIEW OF TECHNICAL PRINCIPLES [J].
HARRINGTON, DP ;
BOXT, LM ;
MURRAY, PD .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1982, 139 (04) :781-786
[4]   System considerations in CCD-based x-ray imaging for digital chest radiography and digital mammography [J].
Hejazi, S ;
Trauernicht, DP .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1997, 24 (02) :287-297
[5]   DETECTION OF SUBTLE MICROCALCIFICATIONS - COMPARISON OF COMPUTED RADIOGRAPHY AND SCREEN-FILM MAMMOGRAPHY [J].
HIGASHIDA, Y ;
MORIBE, N ;
MORITA, K ;
KATSUDA, N ;
HATEMURA, M ;
TAKADA, T ;
TAKAHASHI, M ;
YAMASHITA, J .
RADIOLOGY, 1992, 183 (02) :483-486
[6]   DIGITAL VIDEO SUBTRACTION ANGIOGRAPHY OF RENAL VASCULAR ABNORMALITIES [J].
HILLMAN, BJ ;
OVITT, TW ;
NUDELMAN, S ;
FISHER, HD ;
FROST, MM ;
CAPP, MP ;
ROEHRIG, H ;
SEELEY, G .
RADIOLOGY, 1981, 139 (02) :277-280
[7]   Subtle pulmonary disease: Detection with computed radiography versus conventional chest radiography [J].
Ishigaki, T ;
Endo, T ;
Ikeda, M ;
Kono, M ;
Yoshida, S ;
Ikezoe, J ;
Murata, K ;
Matsumoto, M .
RADIOLOGY, 1996, 201 (01) :51-60
[8]   LONGITUDINAL DATA-ANALYSIS USING GENERALIZED LINEAR-MODELS [J].
LIANG, KY ;
ZEGER, SL .
BIOMETRIKA, 1986, 73 (01) :13-22
[9]  
Merritt C R, 1985, J Thorac Imaging, V1, P1, DOI 10.1097/00005382-198512000-00003