ABSTRACT
Interventional radiology (IR) has undergone a paradigm shift, and has become more clinically directed. This is particularly true with the new training programs, which are all required to have outpatient clinics, admitting services, and consult services within their hospitals. Despite these changes in education, however, many jobs still require a significant amount of diagnostic imaging work, and many established groups are reticent to allow the time and resources needed to pursue this clinical model of IR practice. This lack of support can lead to frustration for the early career interventional radiologist. This article describes the experience of one early career interventional radiologist, including some of the challenges and opportunities that have arisen from the recent changes in training.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Computer-aided detection (CAD) has shown potential to assist physicians in the detection of lung nodules on chest radiographs, but widespread acceptance has been stymied by high false-positive rates. Few studies have examined the potential for dual energy subtraction (DES) to improve CAD performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained, the requirement for informed consent was waived because the study was retrospective, and practices conformed to Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations. The CAD program was applied retrospectively to dual energy posteroanterior (PA) chest radiographs of 36 patients (17 women, 19 men, mean age 69 y) with 48 pathology proven lung nodules. Results were analyzed to determine the stand-alone CAD program false-positive rates, and sensitivity by nodule subtlety and location. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi(2) or Fisher exact tests for independence of sensitivities between standard PA and DES radiography. Differences in the mean false-positives per image (FPPI) between radiographic modalities were determined using the paired Students t test, and bootstrap confidence intervals were obtained to confirm results. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the CAD program with the standard PA was 46% (22 of 48 nodules) compared with 67% (32 of 48 nodules) using the DES soft tissue or bone-subtracted view (P=0.064). The average number of FPPI identified by CAD was significantly lower using DES (FPPI(soft tissue) = 1.64) when compared with the standard PA chest radiograph (FPPI(PA) = 2.39) (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: DES has the potential to improve stand-alone CAD performance by both increasing sensitivity for certain subtle lung cancer lesions and decreasing overall CAD false-positive rates.
