관상동맥 석회화 침착 정량화 CT검사를 위한 제조사별 소프트웨어의 재현성 평가

• 영문명: Comparison Among the Software Reproducibilities for Coronary Arteries Calcification Scoring
• 발행기관: 대한CT영상기술학회
• 저자명: 변정인(Joog In Byun) 남윤철(Yoon Chol Nam) 조원홍(Won Hong Cho) 김문찬(Moon Chan Kim)
• 간행물 정보: 『대한CT영상기술학회지』대한전산화단층기술학회지 제8권 제1호, 109~116쪽, 전체 8쪽
• 주제분류: 의약학 > 방사선과학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2006.04.30

영문 초록

Purpose The main purpose of coronary calcification quantifiable test is to prognose the progress of arteriosclerosis, to screen the group and to prevent exacerbation. Like, the test is performed by periodic pursuit test. However, the numerical value outputted newly is difficult to compare with the former value, in case a new tomography was replaced or a patientwas transferred to another hospital. It is because test methods and the softwares for quantifiable test are not standardized yet. Hereupon, this study was performed on purpose to compare the calcification values, outputted by a company’s, with other companies’. Materials and Methods The 30cases, sampled 10cases respectively from 3companies, were subjected to this study. Likewise, LightSpeed 16 and Advantage workstation 4.1(GE), Brilliance 40 and Extended Brilliance Workspace 2.0(Philips) and Somatom Sensation 16 and Wizard Workstation 3D Card(VB10B Siemens) were subjected to this study. In order that clear images can be secured, GE’s testers were operated under the condition of 0.5 rotation time, 120kVp and 350mA, through axial prospective gating. In case of Philips’ products, the exposure condition was composed of 0.42 rotation time, 120kVp and 196mAs(effective mAs), through axial prospective gating. In case of Siemens’, the condition was composed of 0.42 rotation time, 120kVp and 150mAs (effectivemAs), through helical retroprospective gating. While 25cm DFOV-2.5mm tomographic images were outputted in GE’s and Philips’, 18m DFOV-3mm tomographic images were outputted in Siemens’. AJ-130 and AJ volume were calculated through analyzing the images, outputted from a company’s product, on 3companies’, and the numerical difference among the companies were ascertained through the values. Results 1. The 10 data outputted from ‘P’ Company was respectively analyzed on the softwares of P, S and G Company respectively. As a result of ascertaining the numerical difference between P and S Company, the variation of AJ-130 was from 0 to 16.9%, based on P Company. On this occasion, 2 data were correctly tallied with each other, and 0.1~5% and 15.1~20% were one of each. AJ volume indicated the variation between 8 and 119%, and 0.1~50%, 50.1~100% and 100.1~150% were 4, 3 and 3 cases respectively. Likewise, the numericaldifference between P and G Company was ascertained on the basis of P Company. As a result, the variation was from 0.3 to 20.9% in case of P Company; 0.1~5%, 5.1~10%, 10.1~15% were 1, 1 and 2 cases respectively. In case of AJ volume, the variation indicated the range between 0.2 and 169.8%. Enumerating respective variations, 0.1~50% were 4 cases, 50.1~100% were 3 cases, 100.1~150% was 1 case and 150.1~200% were 2 cases. 2. The 10 data outputted from ‘S’ Company were respectivelyanalyzed on the softwares of P, S and G Company. In consequence, AJ-130 indicated the variation between 0 and 3.5%, based on S Company, and the cases where numerical value was correctly tallied were 3 parts; the remnant 7 cases showed the variation from0.1 to 5%. AJ volume indicated the variation between 1.9 and 10.5%, and 0.1~5%, 5.1~10% and 10.1~15% were 7, 1 and 1 case respectively. In the numerical difference between S and G Company, AJ-130 showed the variation from 0 to 16.2%, based on S Company. One case were correctly tallied, and 0.1~5%, 10.1~15% and 15.1~20% were 7, 1 and 1 case respectively. In case of AJ volume, the variation was from 0.1 to 22.8% and 0.1~5%, 5.1~10% and 20.1~25% were 5, 4 and 1 case of each. 3. The 10 data outputted from ‘G’ Company were respectively analyzed on the softwaresof G and P Company. In consequence of ascertaining the numerical difference between G and P Company, AJ-130 indicated the variation range from 0.1 to 11.8%, based on G Company, and 0.1~5%, 5.1~10% and 10.1~15% were 7, 2 and 1 case respectively. In case of AJ volume, 10 differences were observed between 0.1 and 3.3%. Conclusion In case coronary calcification was analyze

목차

Abstract

Ⅰ. 목적

Ⅱ. 대상 및 방법

Ⅲ. 결과

Ⅳ. 고찰

Ⅴ. 결론

참고문헌

키워드

coronary calcification prospective gating retroprospective gating AJ-130 and AJ volume