ArticleMedical physics2009
Dual resolution cone beam breast CT: a feasibility study.
Article in Medical physics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Micro-CT Empowered by Interior Tomography, Robotic Scanning, and Deep Learning.IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions · 2020Article
- Augmented laminography, a correlative 3D imaging method for revealing the inner structure of compressed fossils.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Volumetric CT with sparse detector arrays (and application to Si-strip photon counters).Physics in medicine and biology · 2016Article
- Radiation doses in volume-of-interest breast computed tomography--A Monte Carlo simulation study.Medical physics · 2015Article
- Breast tissue decomposition with spectral distortion correction: a postmortem study.Medical physics · 2014Article
- Volume-of-interest imaging of the inner ear in a human temporal bone specimen using a robot- driven C-arm flat panel detector CT system.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2012Article
- High resolution dual detector volume-of-interest cone beam breast CT--Demonstration with a bench top system.Medical physics · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIn this study, the authors investigated the feasibility of a dual resolution volume-of-interest (VOI) cone beam breast CT technique and compared two implementation approaches in terms of dose saving and scatter reduction.
methodsWith this technique, a lead VOI mask with an opening is inserted between the x-ray source and the breast to deliver x-ray exposure to the VOI while blocking x rays outside the VOI. A CCD detector is used to collect the high resolution projection data of the VOI. Low resolution cone beam CT (CBCT) images of the entire breast, acquired with a flat panel (FP) detector, were used to calculate the projection data outside the VOI with the ray-tracing reprojection method. The Feldkamp-Davis-Kress filtered backprojection algorithm was used to reconstruct the dual resolution 3D images. Breast phantoms with 180 microm and smaller microcalcifications (MCs) were imaged with both FP and FP-CCD dual resolution CBCT systems, respectively. Two approaches of implementing the dual resolution technique, breast-centered approach and VOI-centered approach, were investigated and evaluated for dose saving and scatter reduction with Monte Carlo simulation using a GEANT4 package.
resultsThe results showed that the breast-centered approach saved more breast absorbed dose than did VOI-centered approach with similar scatter reduction. The MCs in fatty breast phantom, which were invisible with FP CBCT scan, became visible with the FP-CCD dual resolution CBCT scan.
conclusionsThese results indicate potential improvement of the image quality inside the VOI with reduced breast dose both inside and outside the VOI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.