ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate the additional value of the color coding of dynamic data using the 3TP method in the evaluation of contrast-enhanced breast MRI for readers with different levels of experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 52 lesions were included in this study, 25 malignant and 27 benign. All lesions were evaluated by four readers on two different workstations for the evaluation of dynamic breast MRI; one displaying the subtracted images and relative enhancement versus time curves and one displaying the subtracted images together with the 3TP color coding projected onto pre-contrast T1 images. Readers with different levels of experience were used. The diagnostic performance of both workstations was evaluated using ROC curve analyses. Interobserver variations were evaluated using kappa statistics. RESULTS: All lesions were detected by all four readers on both workstations. The diagnostic performance found in the inexperienced readers improved significantly when using the 3TP evaluations (p=0.04 and p=0.03). No significant difference was found for the more experienced readers (p=0.94 and p=0.54). The level of agreement between the readers improved significantly when using the 3TP evaluation method (p=0.01). CONCLUSION: Even though the 3TP color coding did not improve the diagnostic performance of the more experienced readers, this study clearly shows its value for inexperienced readers. The use of 3TP color coding is therefore recommended for inexperienced readers.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Color , Image Enhancement/methods , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Meglumine , Organometallic Compounds , Contrast Media , Female , Humans , Observer Variation , Professional Competence , Reproducibility of Results , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
AIM: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. METHODS: After a comprehensive literature search, studies were included that allowed construction of contingency tables for detection of lymph node metastases using CT or MRI. In addition, a summary receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 24 studies were included. For CT, pooled sensitivity was 0.42 (0.26-0.56 95% CI) and pooled specificity was 0.82 (0.8-0.83 95% CI). For MRI, the pooled sensitivity was 0.39 (0.22-0.56 95% CI) and pooled specificity was 0.82 (0.79-0.83 95% CI). The differences in performance of CT and MRI were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: CT and MRI demonstrate an equally poor performance in the detection of lymph node metastases from prostate cancer. Reliance on either CT or MRI will misrepresent the patient's true status regarding nodal metastases, and thus misdirect the therapeutic strategies offered to the patient.
