ArticleLa Radiologia medica2014
First-pass perfusion of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with 64-detector-row CT: a study of technique repeatability and intra- and interobserver variability.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulmonary regional blood flow: validation of low-dose two-volume dynamic CT perfusion imaging in a swine model.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- Contrast timing optimization of a two-volume dynamic CT pulmonary perfusion technique.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Nitroglycerin as a radiosensitizer in non-small cell lung cancer: Results of a prospective imaging-based phase II trial.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2020Article
- Dynamic pulmonary CT perfusion using first-pass analysis technique with only two volume scans: Validation in a swine model.PloS one · 2020Article
- Observer Variability in CT Perfusion Parameters in Primary and Metastatic Tumors in the Lung.Technology in cancer research & treatment · 2018Article
- Long noncoding RNA CCAT2 promotes proliferation and metastasis in non-small cell lung cancer through the Wnt pathway.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study was done to prospectively assess the repeatability and intra- and interobserver variability of first-pass perfusion with 64-detector-row computed tomography (CT) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a maximum diameter of up to 8 cm. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwelve patients with NSCLC underwent 64-detector-row first-pass CT perfusion (CTP) of the whole tumour. Two different techniques were used according to lesion size (cine mode; sequential mode). After 24 h, each study was repeated to assess repeatability. Lesion blood volume (BV), blood flow (BF), mean transit time (MTT) and peak enhancement intensity (PEI) were automatically calculated by two chest radiologists in two different reading sessions. Intra- and interobserver variability was also assessed.
resultsThe first-pass CTP technique was repeatable and precise with within-subject coefficient of variation (WCV) of 9.3, 16.4, 11.2 and 14.9 %, respectively, for BV, BF, MTT and PEI. High intra- and interobserver agreement was demonstrated for each perfusion parameter, with Cronbach's α coefficients and intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.99 to 1. Precision of measurements was slightly better for intraobserver analysis with WCV ranging between 1.05 and 3.03 %.
conclusionsNon-small-cell lung cancer first-pass perfusion performed with 64-detector-row CT showed good repeatability and high intra- and interobserver agreement for all perfusion parameters and may be considered a reliable and robust tool for assessing tumour vascularisation.
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.