AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Baek, S. Y.
Right arrow Articles by Nelson, R. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Baek, S. Y.
Right arrow Articles by Nelson, R. C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
AJR 2001; 176:1467-1473
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Two-Dimensional Multiplanar and Three-Dimensional Volume-Rendered Vascular CT in Pancreatic Carcinoma

Interobserver Agreement and Comparison with Standard Helical Techniques

Seung Yon Baek1, Douglas H. Sheafor2, Mary T. Keogan3, David M. DeLong2 and Rendon C. Nelson2

1 Department of Radiology, Ewha Womans University Mok Dong Hospital, 911-1 Mok-Dong, Yang-Cheon-Ku, Seoul, 158-710 South Korea.
2 Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Erwin Rd., Box 3808, Durham, NC 27710.
3 Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Ave., Boston, MA 02215.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare two-dimensional curved multiplanar and three-dimensional reconstructions, routine axial presentations, and combined techniques in the assessment of vascular involvement by pancreatic malignancy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. For 44 patients with known pancreatic malignancy a total of 56 arterial phase helical CT scans were obtained. Targeted pancreatic imaging was performed, and reformatted images were generated. Axial source images, reformatted images, and the combination of axial and reformatted images were interpreted independently by three observers. The observers graded the celiac axis, common and proper hepatic, splenic, gastroduodenal, and superior mesenteric arteries for tumor involvement. Grades of vascular involvement were compared by intra- and interobserver variability analyses.

RESULTS. Intraobserver agreement averaged over five vessels was good between the axial and combined techniques for each individual observer (0.64 <= {kappa} <= 0.66), but intraobserver agreement was poor between the axial and reformatted ({kappa} = 0.17 and {kappa} = 0.31, respectively) and the reformatted and combined techniques ({kappa} = 0.31 and {kappa} = 0.38, respectively) for two observers. For grading of vascular involvement in each vessel, intraobserver agreement was good to excellent between the axial and combined techniques (0.48 <= {kappa} <= 0.82). Interobserver agreement averaged over five vessels was poor for imaging techniques except between observer 2 and observer 3 on the axial ({kappa} = 0.47) and combined techniques ({kappa} = 0.47). For grading of vascular involvement in each vessel, interobserver agreement for reformatted technique was poor (0.09 <= {kappa} <= 0.40).

CONCLUSION. Multiplanar and volume-rendered techniques showed the highest intra- and interobserver variability in grading vascular involvement by pancreatic malignancy. These images should be used in combination with routine axial images to decrease observer variability.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
E. K. Fishman, D. R. Ney, D. G. Heath, F. M. Corl, K. M. Horton, and P. T. Johnson
Volume rendering versus maximum intensity projection in CT angiography: what works best, when, and why.
RadioGraphics, May 1, 2006; 26(3): 905 - 922.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Ultrasound MedHome page
A. Kobayashi, T. Yamaguchi, T. Ishihara, T. Ohshima, I. Ohno, K. Seza, Y. Shirai, K. Sudo, A. Nakagawa, H. Tadenuma, et al.
Assessment of Portal Vein Invasion in Pancreatic Cancer by Fusion 3-Dimensional Ultrasonography
J. Ultrasound Med., March 1, 2005; 24(3): 363 - 369.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
D. D. Cody
AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Topics in CT: Image Processing in CT
RadioGraphics, September 1, 2002; 22(5): 1255 - 1268.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.