3 294

Cited 7 times in

Quality Assurance in Ultrasound Screening for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using a Standardized Phantom and Standard Clinical Images A 3-Year National Investigation in Korea

Authors
 Joon-Il Choi  ;  Seung Eun Jung  ;  Pyo Nyun Kim  ;  Sang Hoon Cha  ;  Jae Kwan Jun  ;  Hoo-Yeon Lee  ;  Eun-Cheol Park 
Citation
 JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE, Vol.33(6) : 985-995, 2014 
Journal Title
 JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE 
ISSN
 0278-4297 
Issue Date
2014
MeSH
Carcinoma, Hepatocellular/diagnostic imaging* ; Equipment Design ; Equipment Failure Analysis ; Female ; Humans ; Liver Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging* ; Male ; Mass Screening/standards* ; Observer Variation ; Phantoms, Imaging/standards* ; Quality Assurance, Health Care* ; Reference Values ; Reproducibility of Results ; Republic of Korea ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Ultrasonography/instrumentation* ; Ultrasonography/standards*
Keywords
hepatocellular carcinoma ; phantom ; public policy ; quality assurance ; screening ; ultrasound
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of ultrasound (US) imaging for hepatocellular carcinoma screening. METHODS: The investigation was performed at all medical institutes participating in the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea. For assessment of personnel, we inquired who was performing the US screenings. For phantom image evaluation, the dead zone, vertical and horizontal measurements, axial and lateral resolution, sensitivity, and gray scale/dynamic range were evaluated. For clinical image evaluation, US images of patients were evaluated in terms of the standard images, technical information, overall image quality, appropriateness of depth, foci, annotations, and the presence of any artifacts. RESULTS: Failure rates for phantom and clinical image evaluations at general hospitals, smaller hospitals, and private clinics were 20.9%, 24.5%, 24.1% and 5.5%, and 14.8% and 9.5%, respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed in the failure rates for the phantom images among groups of different years of manufacture. For the clinical image evaluation, the results of radiologists were significantly better than those of other professional groups (P = .0001 and .0004 versus nonradiology physicians and nonphysicians, respectively). The failure rate was also higher when the storage format was analog versus digital (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 20% of US scanners failed the phantom image evaluation. The year of scanner manufacture was not significantly associated with the results of the phantom image evaluation. The quality of the clinical images obtained by radiologists was the best.
Full Text
http://www.jultrasoundmed.org/content/33/6/985.long
DOI
10.7863/ultra.33.6.985
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Preventive Medicine and Public Health (예방의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Park, Eun-Cheol(박은철) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2306-5398
URI
https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/98772
사서에게 알리기
  feedback

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse