Detailed Information

Cited 0 time in webofscience Cited 15 time in scopus
Metadata Downloads

Gastric cancer detection using MDCT compared with 2D axial CT: diagnostic accuracy of three different reconstruction techniques

Authors
Kim, Jung HoonEun, Hyo WonHong, Seong SookKim, Young JaeHan, Joon KooChoi, Byung Ihn
Issue Date
Aug-2012
Publisher
Springer New York
Keywords
2D CT; Gastric cancer; MDCT; Image reconstruction; Virtual gastroscopy
Citation
Abdominal Imaging, v.37, no.4, pp 541 - 548
Pages
8
Journal Title
Abdominal Imaging
Volume
37
Number
4
Start Page
541
End Page
548
URI
https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/sch/handle/2021.sw.sch/14996
DOI
10.1007/s00261-011-9823-9
ISSN
0942-8925
1432-0509
Abstract
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of different reconstruction techniques using MDCT for gastric cancer detection compared with 2D axial CT. During 7 months, we performed CT examinations of 104 consecutive patients with gastric cancer and of a control group composed of 35 patients without gastric disease. All gastric cancer was pathologically proven by endoscopy and surgery. Among 104 patients with gastric cancer, 63 patients had early gastric cancer (EGC). Two radiologists retrospectively and independently interpreted the axial CT and three different reconstruction techniques including multiplanar reformation (MPR), transparent imaging (TI), and virtual gastroscopy (VG), using a commercially available, 3D workstation. They graded the presence or absence of gastric cancer in each image sets using a five-point scale and, if present, they assessed its location. Diagnostic accuracy was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az) for both gastric cancer and only EGC. Sensitivity and specificity were also calculated for each image technique. The k statistics were used to determine inter-observer agreement. The diagnostic accuracy for overall gastric cancer detection for each of the image sets was as follows: 2D axial CT (Az = 0.858); MPR (Az = 0.879); TI (Az = 0.873); and VG (Az = 0.928). VG had significantly better performance than 2D axial CT (p = 0.016). The sensitivity and specificity were as follows: 76.7% and 82.9% in axial CT; 79.6% and 85.7% in MPR; 91.3% and 80% in TI; and 95.1% and 74.3% in VG. In EGC, the diagnostic performance for its detection was as follows: axial CT (Az = 0.777); MPR (Az = 0.811); TI (Az = 0.825); and VG (Az = 0.896). VG had significantly better performance than both 2D axial CT (P = 0.006) and MRP (P = 0.038). The sensitivity and specificity were as follows: 62.9% and 82.9% in axial CT; 67.7% and 85.7% in MPR; 85.5% and 80% in TI; and 91.9% and 74.3% in VG. The inter-observer agreement showed substantial agreement (kappa = 0.67-0.75). Among the different reconstruction techniques, VG accurately detects gastric cancer and is especially useful for EGC compared with 2D axial CT.
Files in This Item
There are no files associated with this item.
Appears in
Collections
College of Medicine > Department of Radiology > 1. Journal Articles

qrcode

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Related Researcher

Researcher Kim, Yong Jae photo

Kim, Yong Jae
College of Medicine (Department of Radiology)
Read more

Altmetrics

Total Views & Downloads

BROWSE