Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Single-exposure dual-energy subtraction chest radiography: Detection of pulmonary nodules and masses in clinical practice

  • Chest
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the impact of energy subtraction (ES) chest radiography on the detection of pulmonary nodules and masses in daily routine. Seventy-seven patients and 25 healthy subjects were examined with a single exposure digital radiography system. Five blinded readers evaluated first the non-subtracted PA and lateral chest radiographs alone and then together with the subtracted PA soft tissue images. The size, location and number of lung nodules or masses were registered with the confidence level. CT was used as standard of reference. For the 200 total lesions, a sensitivity of 33.5–52.5% was found at non-subtracted and a sensitivity of 43.5–58.5% at energy-subtracted radiography, corresponding to a significant improvement in four of five readers (p < 0.05). However, in three of five readers the rate of false positives was higher with ES. With ES, sensitivity, but not the area under the alternative free-response receiver operating characteristics (AFROC) curve, showed a good correlation with reader experience (R = 0.90, p = 0.026). In four of five readers, the diagnostic confidence improved with ES (p = 0.0036). We conclude that single-exposure digital ES chest radiography improves detection of most pulmonary nodules and masses, but identification of nodules <1 cm and false-positive findings remain a problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. McAdams HP, Samei E, Dobbins J, 3rd, Tourassi GD, Ravin CE (2006) Recent advances in chest radiography. Radiology 241:663–683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stewart BK, Huang HK (1990) Single-exposure dual-energy computed radiography. Medical Physics 17:866–875

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Samei E, Flynn MJ (2002) An experimental comparison of detector performance for computed radiography systems. Medical physics 29:447–459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fischbach F, Freund T, Pech M, Werk M, Bassir C, Stoever B, Felix R, Ricke J (2003) Comparison of indirect CsI/a:Si and direct a:Se digital radiography. An assessment of contrast and detail visualization. Acta Radiol 44:616–621

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gruber M, Uffmann M, Weber M, Prokop M, Balassy C, Schaefer-Prokop C (2006) Direct detector radiography versus dual reading computed radiography: feasibility of dose reduction in chest radiography. European Radiology 16:1544–1550

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fraser RG, Hickey NM, Niklason LT, Sabbagh EA, Luna RF, Alexander CB, Robinson CA, Katzenstein AL, Barnes GT (1986) Calcification in pulmonary nodules: detection with dual-energy digital radiography. Radiology 160:595–601

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ho JT, Kruger RA (1989) Comparison of dual-energy and conventional chest radiography for nodule detection. Investigative Radiology 24:861–868

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Oestmann JW, Greene R, Rhea JT, Rosenthal H, Koenker RM, Tillotson CL, Pearsen KD, Hill JW, Velaj RH (1989) “Single-exposure” dual energy digital radiography in the detection of pulmonary nodules and calcifications. Investigative Radiology 24:517–521

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Samei E, Flynn MJ, Eyler WR (1997) Simulation of subtle lung nodules in projection chest radiography. Radiology 202:117–124

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kido S, Kuriyama K, Kuroda C, Nakamura H, Ito W, Shimura K, Kato H (2002) Detection of simulated pulmonary nodules by single-exposure dual-energy computed radiography of the chest: effect of a computer-aided diagnosis system (Part 2). European Journal of Radiology 44:205–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ricke J, Fischbach F, Freund T, Teichgraber U, Hanninen EL, Rottgen R, Engert U, Eichstadt H, Felix R (2003) Clinical results of CsI-detector-based dual-exposure dual energy in chest radiography. Eur Radiol 13:2577–2582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Uemura M, Miyagawa M, Yasuhara Y, Murakami T, Ikura H, Sakamoto K, Tagashira H, Arakawa K, Mochizuki T (2005) Clinical evaluation of pulmonary nodules with dual-exposure dual-energy subtraction chest radiography. Radiation Medicine 23:391–397

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kido S, Ikezoe J, Naito H, Arisawa J, Tamura S, Kozuka T, Ito W, Shimura K, Kato H (1995) Clinical evaluation of pulmonary nodules with single-exposure dual-energy subtraction chest radiography with an iterative noise-reduction algorithm. Radiology 194:407–412

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Fischbach F, Freund T, Rottgen R, Engert U, Felix R, Ricke J (2003) Dual-energy chest radiography with a flat-panel digital detector: revealing calcified chest abnormalities. AJR 181:1519–1524

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fetterly KA, Schueler BA (2006) Performance evaluation of a computed radiography imaging device using a typical “front side” and novel “dual side” readout storage phosphors. Medical Physics 33:290–296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Monnin P, Holzer Z, Wolf R, Neitzel U, Vock P, Gudinchet F, Verdun FR (2006) An image quality comparison of standard and dual-side read CR systems for pediatric radiology. Medical Physics 33:411–420

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Monnin P, Holzer Z, Wolf R, Neitzel U, Vock P, Gudinchet F, Verdun FR (2006) Influence of cassette type on the DQE of CR systems. Medical Physics 33:3637–3639

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Eng J ROC analysis: web-based calculator for ROC curves http://www.jrocfit.org. Last updated:2006 May 17

  19. Chakraborty DP, Winter LH (1990) Free-response methodology: alternate analysis and a new observer-performance experiment. Radiology 174:873–881

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Samei E, Flynn MJ, Eyler WR (1999) Detection of subtle lung nodules: relative influence of quantum and anatomic noise on chest radiographs. Radiology 213:727–734

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Samei E, Flynn MJ, Peterson E, Eyler WR (2003) Subtle lung nodules: influence of local anatomic variations on detection. Radiology 228:76–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Naidich DP, McCauley DI, McGuinness G, Libby DM, Smith JP, Pasmantier MW, Miettinen OS (2004) CT screening for lung cancer: suspiciousness of nodules according to size on baseline scans. Radiology 231:164–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Aberle RD, Gamsu G, Henschke CI, Naidich DP, Swensen SJ (2001) Screening for Lung Cancer with Helical Computed Tomography: A Consensus Statement of the Society of Thoracic Radiology. J Thorac Imaging 16:65–68

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zsolt Szucs-Farkas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Szucs-Farkas, Z., Patak, M.A., Yuksel-Hatz, S. et al. Single-exposure dual-energy subtraction chest radiography: Detection of pulmonary nodules and masses in clinical practice. Eur Radiol 18, 24–31 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0758-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0758-z

Keywords

Navigation