Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2432052052
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Peloschek, P.
Right arrow Articles by Schaefer-Prokop, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Peloschek, P.
Right arrow Articles by Schaefer-Prokop, C.

Pulmonary Nodules: Sensitivity of Maximum Intensity Projection versus That of Volume Rendering of 3D Multidetector CT Data1

Philipp Peloschek, MD, Johannes Sailer, MD, Michael Weber, MSc, Christian J. Herold, MD, Mathias Prokop, MD, and Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop, MD

1 From the Department of Radiology, Vienna Medical University, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, A-1090 Vienna, Austria (P.P., J.S., M.W., C.J.H.); Department of Radiology, Utrecht Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands (M.P.); and Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (C.S.). Received December 16, 2005; revision requested February 10, 2006; revision received May 30; accepted June 20; final version accepted September 5. Supported by grant P17083-N04 from the Austrian Funds for Scientific Research. Address correspondence to P.P. (e-mail: philipp.peloschek{at}meduniwien.ac.at).


Figure 1
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 1: Flowchart of patient inclusion. MDCT = multidetector CT.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 2: Graph shows mean number of readers with correct annotations averaged over different nodule location groups: VR (VRT) is superior to MIP regardless of nodule location. Differences are most pronounced for perihilar nodules.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (107K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 3: Coronal VR (left), transverse MIP (top right), and transverse VR (bottom right) of CT data set in 65-year-old patient with metastatic melanoma. VR images display vessels and the nodule with different densities such that spatial allocation is preserved and the distracting influence of "anatomic noise" is reduced. In the MIP image, however, vascular structures and the nodule have the same attenuation, making it more difficult to visually differentiate between anatomic structures and focal disease.

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 2007 by the Radiological Society of North America.