Effect of Clinical Experience of Chest Tomosynthesis on Detection of Pulmonary Nodules

References

• Ziedses des Plantes BG. Eine neue Methode zur Differenzierung in der Röntgenographie (Planigraphies). Acta Radiol 1932; 13: 182–92
   Google Scholar
• Dobbins JT III, Godfrey DJ. Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential. Phys Med Biol 2003; 48: R65–106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vikgren J, Zachrisson S, Svalkvist A, Johnsson ÅA, 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: 1034–41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakraborty DP, Berbaum KS. Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation. Med Phys 2004; 31: 2313–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zachrisson S, Vikgren J, Svalkvist A, Johnsson ÅA, Boijsen M, Flinck A, et al. Evaluation of chest tomosynthesis for the detection of pulmonary nodules: effect of clinical experience and comparison with chest radiography. Proc SPIE ; :Z10 2009; 7263: 72630Z1–72630
   Google Scholar
• Tapiovaara M, Lakkisto M, Sermovaa A. PCXMC: a PC-based Monte Carlo program for calculating patient doses in medical X-ray examinations. Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety, Helsinki 1997
   Google Scholar
• Svalkvist A, Zachrisson S, Månsson LG, Båth M. Investigation of the dosimetry of chest tomosynthesis. Proc SPIE ;:X8 2009; 7258: 72585X1–72585
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Report EUR 16262 EN. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Puech, P, Boussel, L. DicomWorks 1.3.5. URL: http://dicom.online.fr/, , (published August 4, 2002; accessed May 31, 2005).
   Google Scholar
• Börjesson S, Håkansson M, Båth M, Kheddache S, Svensson S, Tingberg A, et al. A software tool for increased efficiency in observer performance studies in radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005; 114: 45–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Håkansson M, Svensson S, Båth M, Månsson LG. ViewDEX – a Java-based software for presentation and evaluation of medical images in observer performance studies. Proc SPIE 2007; 6509: 65091R1–65091R8
   Google Scholar
• Håkansson M, Svensson S, Zachrisson S, Svalkvist A, Båth M, Månsson LG. ViewDEX 2.0: a Java-based DICOM-compatible software for observer performance studies. Proc SPIE 2009; 7263: 72631G1–72631G10
   Google Scholar
• MacMahon H, Austin JH, Gamsu G, Herold CJ, Jett JR, Naidich DP, et al. Guidelines for management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2005; 237: 395–400
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng B, Chakraborty DP, Rockette HE, Maitz GS, Gur D. A comparison of two data analyses from two observer performance studies using Jackknife ROC and JAFROC. Med Phys 2005; 32: 1031–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakraborty DP. Recent advances in observer performance methodology: jackknife free-response ROC (JAFROC). Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005; 114: 26–31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penedo M, Souto M, Tahoces PG, Carreira JM, Villalon J, Porto G, et al. Free-response receiver operating characteristic evaluation of lossy JPEG2000 and object-based set partitioning in hierarchical trees compression of digitized mammograms. Radiology 2005; 237: 450–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakraborty DP. Analysis of location specific observer performance data: validated extensions of the jackknife free-response (JAFROC) method. Acad Radiol 2006; 13: 1187–93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruschin M, Timberg P, Båth M, Hemdal B, Svahn T, Saunders RS, et al. Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: free response human observer studies. Med Phys 2007; 34: 400–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakraborty, DP. JAFROC1_V1.0. URL: http://www.devchakraborty.com/, , (published 2008; accessed July 18, 2008).
   Google Scholar
• Edwards DC, Kupinski MA, Metz CE, Nishikawa RM. Maximum likelihood fitting of FROC curves under an initial-detection-and-candidate-analysis model. Med Phys 2002; 29: 2861–70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoon HJ, Zheng B, Sahiner B, Chakraborty DP. Evaluating computer aided detection (CAD) algorithms. Med Phys 2007; 34: 2024–38
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurt Rossmann Laboratories for Radiologic Image Research at the University of Chicago. URL: http://www-radiology.uchicago.edu/krl/KRL_ROC/software_index6.htm, , (accessed November 28, 2008).
   Google Scholar
• Berbaum, K. DBM MRMC software 2.2. URL: http://perception.radiology.uiowa.edu, , (published June 24, 2008; accessed January 7, 2009).
   Google Scholar
• Chakraborty DP. Validation and statistical power comparison of methods for analyzing free-response observer performance studies. Acad Radiol 2008; 15: 1554–66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valencia R, Denecke T, Lehmkuhl L, Fischbach F, Felix R, Knollmann F. Value of axial and coronal maximum intensity projection (MIP) images in the detection of pulmonary nodules by multislice spiral CT: comparison with axial 1-mm and 5-mm slices. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 325–32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peloschek P, Sailer J, Weber M, Herold CJ, Prokop M, Schaefer-Prokop C. Pulmonary nodules: sensitivity of maximum intensity projection versus that of volume rendering of 3D multidetector CT data. Radiology 2007; 243: 561–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischbach F, Knollmann F, Griesshaber V, Freund T, Akkol E, Felix R. Detection of pulmonary nodules by multislice computed tomography: improved detection rate with reduced slice thickness. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 2378–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar