title: Comparing Image Perception of Bladder Tumors in Four Different Storz Professional Image Enhancement System Modalities Using the íSPIES App.
abstract: To evaluate the variation of interpretation of the same bladder urothelium image in different Storz Professional Image Enhancement System (SPIES) modalities. SPIES contains a White light (WL), Spectra A (SA), Spectra B (SB), and Clara and Chroma combined (CC) modality.
  
  
  
  An App for the iPAD retina was developed to study evaluation of images. A total of 80 images from 20 bladder areas acquired in four modalities were included. Seventy-three participants completed the study. Images were analyzed on differences in delineated tumor margin variation, perceived quality of the image, and delineation time.
  
  
  
  A separation between high agreement (n = 14) and low agreement (n = 6) images was found. In high agreement images, no difference in root mean square (RMS) was found between modalities. In low agreement images, WL (26.5 pixels) and SA (33.4 pixels) had a higher RMS than CC (18 pixels) and SB (21.4 pixels). The quality of SPIES modalities images was rated significantly higher. Delineation time was similar.
  
  
  
  In low agreement cases, images in CC and SB have less variation in interpretation than WL and SA. The image quality in SPIES modalities is graded significantly higher than WL. There is no difference in delineation time between modalities.
authors.affiliation: 1 Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center , Amsterdam, the Netherlands .
authors.forename: Guido M
authors.initials: GM
authors.lastname: Kamphuis
authors.affiliation: 1 Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center , Amsterdam, the Netherlands .|2 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Academic Medical Center , Amsterdam, the Netherlands .
authors.forename: D Martijn
authors.initials: DM
authors.lastname: de Bruin
authors.affiliation: 2 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Academic Medical Center , Amsterdam, the Netherlands .
authors.forename: Martin J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Brandt
authors.affiliation: 3 Department of Urology, Klinikum Sindelfingen-Böblingen , Sindelfingen, Germany .
authors.forename: Thomas
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Knoll
authors.affiliation: 4 Department of Urology, Pitie-Salpetriere Academic Hospital , Paris, France .
authors.forename: Pierre
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Conort
authors.affiliation: 5 Department of Urology, University of Florence Careggi Hospital , Florence, Italy .
authors.forename: Alberto
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Lapini
authors.affiliation: 6 Department of Urology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología , Valencia, Spain .
authors.forename: Jose L
authors.initials: JL
authors.lastname: Dominguez-Escrig
authors.affiliation: 1 Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center , Amsterdam, the Netherlands .
authors.forename: Jean J M C H
authors.initials: JJ
authors.lastname: de la Rosette
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D034201:Computers, Handheld; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007089:Image Enhancement / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D063731:Mobile Applications; D015588:Observer Variation; D012984:Software; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D001749:Urinary Bladder Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D019459:Urothelium / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D055815:Young Adult