Performance of ultralow-dose CT with iterative reconstruction in lung cancer screening: limiting radiation exposure to the equivalent of conventional chest X-ray imaging
European Radiology, ISSN: 1432-1084, Vol: 26, Issue: 10, Page: 3643-3652
2016
- 76Citations
- 55Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations76
- Citation Indexes75
- 75
- CrossRef22
- Policy Citations1
- 1
- Captures55
- Readers55
- 55
Article Description
Objective: To investigate the detection rate of pulmonary nodules in ultralow-dose CT acquisitions. Materials and methods: In this lung phantom study, 232 nodules (115 solid, 117 ground-glass) of different sizes were randomly distributed in a lung phantom in 60 different arrangements. Every arrangement was acquired once with standard radiation dose (100 kVp, 100 references mAs) and once with ultralow radiation dose (80 kVp, 6 mAs). Iterative reconstruction was used with optimized kernels: I30 for ultralow-dose, I70 for standard dose and I50 for CAD. Six radiologists examined the axial 1-mm stack for solid and ground-glass nodules. During a second and third step, three radiologists used maximum intensity projection (MIPs), finally checking with computer-assisted detection (CAD), while the others first used CAD, finally checking with the MIPs. Results: The detection rate was 95.5 % with standard dose (DLP 126 mGy*cm) and 93.3 % with ultralow-dose (DLP: 9 mGy*cm). The additional use of either MIP reconstructions or CAD software could compensate for this difference. A combination of both MIP reconstructions and CAD software resulted in a maximum detection rate of 97.5 % with ultralow-dose. Conclusion: Lung cancer screening with ultralow-dose CT using the same radiation dose as a conventional chest X-ray is feasible. Key points: • 93.3 % of all lung nodules were detected with ultralow-dose CT. • A sensitivity of 97.5 % is possible with additional image post-processing. • The radiation dose is comparable to a standard radiography in two planes. • Lung cancer screening with ultralow-dose CT is feasible.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84955311025&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4192-3; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26813670; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00330-015-4192-3; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4192-3; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00330-015-4192-3
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know