Optimal Presentation Modes for Detecting Brain Tumor Progression

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A common task in radiology interpretation is visual comparison of images. The purpose of this study was to compare traditional side-by-side and in-place (flicker) image presentation modes with advanced methods for detecting primary brain tumors on MR imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 66 patients with gliomas and 3 consecutive brain MR imaging examinations (a “triplet”). A display application that presented images in side-by-side mode with or without flicker display as well as display of image subtraction or automated change detection information (also with and without flicker display) was used by 3 board-certified neuroradiologists. They identified regions of brain tumor progression by using this display application. Each case was reviewed using all modes (side-by-side presentation with and without flicker, subtraction with and without flicker, and change detection with and without flicker), with results compared via a panel rating. RESULTS: Automated change detection with or without flicker (P < .0027) as well as subtraction with or without flicker (P < .0027) were more sensitive to tumor progression than side-by-side presentation in cases where all 3 raters agreed. Change detection afforded the highest interrater agreement, followed by subtraction. Clinically determined time to progression was longer for cases rated as nonprogressing by using subtraction images and change-detection images both with and without flicker display mode compared with side-by-side presentation. CONCLUSIONS: Automated change detection and image subtraction, with and without flicker display mode, are superior to side-by-side image comparison.

[1]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. , 1968 .

[2]  J. Hajnal,et al.  Detection of Subtle Brain Changes Using Subvoxel Registration and Subtraction of Serial MR Images , 1995, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[3]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  TO SEE OR NOT TO SEE: The Need for Attention to Perceive Changes in Scenes , 1997 .

[4]  N H Strickland,et al.  Interpretation of CT scans with PACS image display in stack mode. , 1997, Radiology.

[5]  M. Christian,et al.  [New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors]. , 2000, Bulletin du cancer.

[6]  N. Alpert,et al.  Performance Evaluation of an Automated System for Registration and Postprocessing of CT Scans , 2001, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[7]  E L Siegel,et al.  Radiologists' productivity in the interpretation of CT scans: a comparison of PACS with conventional film. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  S. Hartzman,et al.  PACS in private practice--effect on profits and productivity. , 2002, Journal of digital imaging.

[9]  Massimo Filippi,et al.  Image registration and subtraction to detect active T2 lesions in MS: an interobserver study , 2002, Journal of Neurology.

[10]  Dawid Schellingerhout,et al.  Coregistration of head CT comparison studies: assessment of clinical utility. , 2003, Academic radiology.

[11]  Akinobu Shimizu,et al.  An interval change detection method for two chest X-ray images with different rotation angles of the human body and its performance evaluation , 2005, Systems and Computers in Japan.

[12]  Hidemasa Takao,et al.  Temporal Subtraction of Thin-Section Thoracic Computed Tomography Based on a 3-Dimensional Nonlinear Geometric Warping Technique , 2006, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[13]  Mythreyi Bhargavan,et al.  Radiologists' reading times using PACS and using films: one practice's experience. , 2006, Academic radiology.

[14]  Bradley James Erickson,et al.  Part 2. Automated Change Detection and Characterization Applied to Serial MR of Brain Tumors may Detect Progression Earlier than Human Experts , 2006, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[15]  Bradley James Erickson,et al.  Part 1. Automated Change Detection and Characterization in Serial MR Studies of Brain-Tumor Patients , 2007, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[16]  Liqin Wang,et al.  Effect of Automated Image Registration on Radiologist Interpretation , 2007, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[17]  Bradley J Erickson,et al.  Image Registration Improves Confidence and Accuracy of Image Interpretation , 2007, Cancer informatics.

[18]  T. Stephens,et al.  Timed efficiency of interpretation of digital and film-screen screening mammograms. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.