Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVardhanabhuti, V
dc.contributor.authorPang, C-L
dc.contributor.authorTenant, S
dc.contributor.authorTaylor, J
dc.contributor.authorHyde, C
dc.contributor.authorRoobottom, C
dc.date.accessioned2017-07-28T07:59:15Z
dc.date.available2017-07-28T07:59:15Z
dc.date.issued2017-06
dc.identifier.issn0720-048X
dc.identifier.issn1872-7727
dc.identifier.otherC
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/9649
dc.descriptionpublisher: Elsevier articletitle: 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 journaltitle: European Journal of Radiology articlelink: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.04.006 content_type: article copyright: © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
dc.description.abstract

OBJECTIVES: 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 ≤4mm, and subsolid nodules ≤5mm (p<0.05). Deterioration of RD2 is correlated to patient's body mass index and least affected by MBIR. For solid nodules ≤4mm, 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 ≤5mm, 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 ≤4mm, and subsolid nodules ≤5mm and deterioration of RD2 is related to patient's body mass index.

dc.format.extent130-141
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier BV
dc.subjectLow dose CT
dc.subjectThorax CT
dc.subjectLung nodule
dc.subjectIterative reconstruction
dc.subjectComputed tomography
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.typejournal-article
dc.typeJournal Article
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000405361200020&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.volume91
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalEuropean Journal of Radiology
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.04.006
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/Peninsula Medical School
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA01 Clinical Medicine
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA01 Clinical Medicine/UoA01 Clinical Medicine
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dc.publisher.placeIreland
dcterms.dateAccepted2017-04-10
dc.rights.embargodate2018-4-15
dc.identifier.eissn1872-7727
dc.rights.embargoperiod12 months
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.04.006
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/under-embargo-all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2017-06
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV