File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Prospective intra-individual comparison of standard dose versus reduced-dose thoracic CT using hybrid and pure iterative reconstruction in a follow-up cohort of pulmonary nodules—Effect of detectability of pulmonary nodules with lowering dose based on nodule size, type and body mass index

TitleProspective intra-individual comparison of standard dose versus reduced-dose thoracic CT using hybrid and pure iterative reconstruction in a follow-up cohort of pulmonary nodules—Effect of detectability of pulmonary nodules with lowering dose based on nodule size, type and body mass index
Authors
Issue Date2017
PublisherElsevier Ireland Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ejrad
Citation
European Journal of Radiology, 2017, v. 91, p. 130-141 How to Cite?
AbstractAbstractObjectives To determine the diagnostic accuracy of lung nodule detection in thoracic CT using 2 reduced dose protocols comparing 3 available CT reconstruction algorithms (filtered back projection-FBP, adaptive statistical reconstruction-ASIR and model-based iterative reconstruction-MBIR) in a western population. Materials and methods A prospective single-center study recruited 98 patients with written consent. Standard dose (STD) thoracic CT followed by 2 reduced-dose protocols using automatic tube current modulation (RD1) and fixed tube current (RD2) were performed and reconstructed with FBP, ASIR and MBIR with subsequent diagnostic accuracy analysis for nodule detection. Results 108 solid nodules, 47 subsolid nodules and 89 purely calcified nodules were analyzed. RD1 was superior to RD2 for assessment of solid nodules ≤4 mm, and subsolid nodules ≤5 mm (p < 0.05). Deterioration of RD2 is correlated to patient’s body mass index and least affected by MBIR. For solid nodules ≤4 mm, MBIR area under curve (AUC) for RD1 was 0.935/0.913 and AUC for RD2 was 0.739/0.739, for rater 1/rater2 respectively. For subsolid nodules ≤5 mm, MBIR AUC for RD1 was 0.971/0.986 and AUC for RD2 was 0.914/0.914, for rater 1/rater2 respectively. For calcified nodules excellent detection accuracy was maintained regardless of reconstruction algorithms with AUC >0.97 for both readers across all dose and reconstruction algorithms. Conclusions Diagnostic performance of lung nodule is affected by nodule size, protocol, reconstruction algorithm and patient’s body habitus. The protocol in this study showed that RD1 was superior to RD2 for assessment of solid nodules ≤4 mm, and subsolid nodules ≤5 mm and deterioration of RD2 is related to patient’s body mass index.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/240913
ISSN
2019 Impact Factor: 2.687
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.166
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorVardhanabhuti, V-
dc.contributor.authorPang, C-
dc.contributor.authorTenant, S-
dc.contributor.authorTaylor, J-
dc.contributor.authorHyde, C-
dc.contributor.authorRoobottom, C-
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-22T09:19:22Z-
dc.date.available2017-05-22T09:19:22Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.citationEuropean Journal of Radiology, 2017, v. 91, p. 130-141-
dc.identifier.issn0720-048X-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/240913-
dc.description.abstractAbstractObjectives To determine the diagnostic accuracy of lung nodule detection in thoracic CT using 2 reduced dose protocols comparing 3 available CT reconstruction algorithms (filtered back projection-FBP, adaptive statistical reconstruction-ASIR and model-based iterative reconstruction-MBIR) in a western population. Materials and methods A prospective single-center study recruited 98 patients with written consent. Standard dose (STD) thoracic CT followed by 2 reduced-dose protocols using automatic tube current modulation (RD1) and fixed tube current (RD2) were performed and reconstructed with FBP, ASIR and MBIR with subsequent diagnostic accuracy analysis for nodule detection. Results 108 solid nodules, 47 subsolid nodules and 89 purely calcified nodules were analyzed. RD1 was superior to RD2 for assessment of solid nodules ≤4 mm, and subsolid nodules ≤5 mm (p &lt; 0.05). Deterioration of RD2 is correlated to patient’s body mass index and least affected by MBIR. For solid nodules ≤4 mm, MBIR area under curve (AUC) for RD1 was 0.935/0.913 and AUC for RD2 was 0.739/0.739, for rater 1/rater2 respectively. For subsolid nodules ≤5 mm, MBIR AUC for RD1 was 0.971/0.986 and AUC for RD2 was 0.914/0.914, for rater 1/rater2 respectively. For calcified nodules excellent detection accuracy was maintained regardless of reconstruction algorithms with AUC &gt;0.97 for both readers across all dose and reconstruction algorithms. Conclusions Diagnostic performance of lung nodule is affected by nodule size, protocol, reconstruction algorithm and patient’s body habitus. The protocol in this study showed that RD1 was superior to RD2 for assessment of solid nodules ≤4 mm, and subsolid nodules ≤5 mm and deterioration of RD2 is related to patient’s body mass index.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherElsevier Ireland Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ejrad-
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean Journal of Radiology-
dc.rightsPosting accepted manuscript (postprint): © <year>. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/-
dc.titleProspective intra-individual comparison of standard dose versus reduced-dose thoracic CT using hybrid and pure iterative reconstruction in a follow-up cohort of pulmonary nodules—Effect of detectability of pulmonary nodules with lowering dose based on nodule size, type and body mass index-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailVardhanabhuti, V: varv@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityVardhanabhuti, V=rp01900-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.04.006-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85018517418-
dc.identifier.hkuros272135-
dc.identifier.volume91-
dc.identifier.spage130-
dc.identifier.epage141-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000405361200020-
dc.publisher.placeIreland-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats