Clinical usefulness of digital radiography in the gastrointestinal tract: Efficacy of magnification method

Sugino, Yoshinori; Imai, Yutaka; Fujisawa, Hirohisa; Hiramatsu, K.; Amoh, Hiroshi; Kumakura, K

doi:10.1007/bf03168074

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…( 35,36 ) Furthermore, DR has the following advantages over the conventional screen‐film system: (i) digital imaging allows image quality to be optimized and radiation dose to be reduced; (ii) DR provides rapid data acquisition, digital image processing, and instant image display; and (iii) DR is compatible with a picture archiving and imaging network. ( 26–28 ) Given these features, DR can be particularly useful for barium X‐rays using the double‐contrast imaging method. ( 26–28 ) To improve the efficiency of gastric cancer screening, we introduced the PG test and the barium X‐ray with DR as initial screening tools.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…( 26–28 ) Given these features, DR can be particularly useful for barium X‐rays using the double‐contrast imaging method. ( 26–28 ) To improve the efficiency of gastric cancer screening, we introduced the PG test and the barium X‐ray with DR as initial screening tools. The results of the present study clearly indicate that both the PG test and DR effectively detect gastric cancer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, with the introduction of DR, there has been a reduction in costs for films, reagents for development, and waste disposal. ( 26–28 ) The total cost over 7 years for cancer screening using barium X‐ray was ¥88 235 000 (¥5000/subject), which includes the depreciation cost for the DR system (¥4 000 000/year), the cost for the optical disk (¥250 000/year), hard copy paper (¥220 000/year), the cost for barium meals, effervescent granules, anticholinergics (¥1714 280/year, ¥680/subject) and other costs, including personnel expenses. Since the cost of DR can be decreased considerably, the total cost of DR could be reduced to less than ¥3500/subject, in which case the cost to detect a single case of cancer using a DR screening program would be reduced to less than ¥3 094 044.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, it is considered to be a good alternative to conventional barium X‐ray. ( 26–28 ) Thus, to overcome the drawbacks of gastric cancer screening using the PG test, we introduced gastric cancer screening using a combination of the PG test and DR as the first‐step screening tool. In the present study, we analyzed the results of 7 years of screening, and we evaluated not only the validity of the screening system itself, but also the particular characteristics of each of the two screening methods.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Gastric cancer screening of a high‐risk population in Japan using serum pepsinogen and barium digital radiography

Ohata

Oka²,

Yanaoka³

et al. 2005

Cancer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the aim of developing more efficient gastric cancer screening programs for use in Japan, we studied a new screening program that combines serum pepsinogen (PG) testing and barium digital radiography (DR). A total of 17 647 middle-aged male subjects underwent workplace screening over a 7-year period using a combination of PG testing and DR. This program's effectiveness, as well as other characteristics of the program, was analyzed. Forty-nine cases of gastric cancer were detected (comprising 88% early cancer cases). The detection rate was 0.28%, and the positive predictive value was 0.85%. The PG test detected 63.3% of cases, DR detected 69.4% of cases, and both tests were positive in 32.7% of cancer cases. The two methods were almost equally effective, and were considerably more effective than conventional screening using photofluorography. Each screening method detected a distinct gastric cancer subgroup; the PG test efficiently detected asymptomatic small early cancer with intestinal type histology, while DR was efficient at detecting cancers with depressed or ulcerated morphology and diffuse type histology. The cost for the detection of a single cancer was much less than that for conventional screening. In fact, it is possible to further reduce the cost of detecting a single cancer to a cost comparable to that of surgically resecting a single gastric cancer. Thus, it is probable that a highly efficient gastric cancer screening system can be implemented by combining the two screening methods. Such a screening program would be beneficial in a population at high risk for gastric cancer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Gastric cancer screening of a high‐risk population in Japan using serum pepsinogen and barium digital radiography

Ohata

Oka²,

Yanaoka³

et al. 2005

Cancer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The conclusions from these investigations are, however, widely divergent. Recommendations on substantial dose reductions [3,4,5] as well as warnings about the need for increased doses [6,7] were found. Digital radiography systems employing imageintensifier video systems have been used with a wide range of automatic exposure control settings and the reduced spatial resolution compared with film/screen technique have been compensated by an increased contrast resolution.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of analogue and digital techniques in upper gastrointestinal examinations: absorbed dose and diagnostic quality of the images

Axelsson

Bodén

Fransson³

et al. 2000

European Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was performed to investigate whether patient exposure and diagnostic quality of the image is significantly influenced by the introduction of digital image acquisition techniques. Evaluation was performed for three different techniques (analogue, analogue fluoro + digital radiography, digital) in examination of the upper gastrointestinal tract. The evaluation was done from data acquired in three different departments. Patient exposure was recorded as KERMA-area product (KAP) and the individual patient readings were normalised to a standard size patient. Image quality was assessed using visual grading with a reference image. The recorded KAP values were significantly higher (22.3 Gycm2) for the fully digital technique compared to the others (analogue 6.8 Gycm2, analogue + digital 3.6 Gycm2). This was due mostly to an increased number of exposures. The diagnostic quality of the image was, however, also regarded to be slightly lower for the technique giving the lowest patient dose with the smallest number of exposures (analogue + digital). The digital examination technique, as used in this study, thus resulted in significantly higher patient dose without any significant gain in diagnostic quality of the image.

show abstract

Clinical usefulness of digital radiography in the gastrointestinal tract: Efficacy of magnification method

Cited by 2 publications

References 2 publications

Gastric cancer screening of a high‐risk population in Japan using serum pepsinogen and barium digital radiography

Gastric cancer screening of a high‐risk population in Japan using serum pepsinogen and barium digital radiography

A comparison of analogue and digital techniques in upper gastrointestinal examinations: absorbed dose and diagnostic quality of the images

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About