Japanese journal of radiology · 2015
Added value of a single-energy projection-based metal-artifact reduction algorithm for the computed tomography evaluation of oral cavity cancers.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hirata Kenichiro, Utsunomiya Daisuke, Oda Seitaro, Kidoh Masafumi, Funama Yoshinori, Yuki Hideaki, Yoshida Morikatsu, Yamashita Yasuyuki
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of our study was to investigate the added value of the single-energy projection-based metallic artifact reduction (SEMAR) technique on the visualization and diagnostic confidence of oral cavity cancers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Contrast-enhanced CT was performed on 40 patients with dental metalwork. Of these, 18 patients had pathologically confirmed oral cavity cancer, and the other 22 patients had no lesions. CT attenuation and noise in the oral cavity were compared between the conventional and SEMAR images. Two radiologists visually graded the diagnostic confidence on a 5-point scale from 1 (definitely absent) to 5 (definitely present). The value of the SEMAR was assessed in a receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis.
RESULTS: The artifact of the SEMAR images was significantly lower than that of the conventional images (38.4 ± 18.0 HU vs. 187.7 ± 162.7 HU; P < 0.01). Reviewers 1 and 2 detected 10 and 7 more lesions with the SEMAR, respectively. Areas under the curve for the conventional and SEMAR reconstruction were 0.761 and 0.942, respectively, for reviewer 1 and 0.701 and 0.864, respectively, for reviewer 2.
CONCLUSION: The SEMAR significantly improved the oral cavity cancer visualization and diagnostic confidence.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Contrast-enhanced CT was performed on 40 patients with dental metalwork. Of these, 18 patients had pathologically confirmed oral cavity cancer, and the other 22 patients had no lesions. CT attenuation and noise in the oral cavity were compared between the conventional and SEMAR images. Two radiologists visually graded the diagnostic confidence on a 5-point scale from 1 (definitely absent) to 5 (definitely present). The value of the SEMAR was assessed in a receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis.
RESULTS: The artifact of the SEMAR images was significantly lower than that of the conventional images (38.4 ± 18.0 HU vs. 187.7 ± 162.7 HU; P < 0.01). Reviewers 1 and 2 detected 10 and 7 more lesions with the SEMAR, respectively. Areas under the curve for the conventional and SEMAR reconstruction were 0.761 and 0.942, respectively, for reviewer 1 and 0.701 and 0.864, respectively, for reviewer 2.
CONCLUSION: The SEMAR significantly improved the oral cavity cancer visualization and diagnostic confidence.