Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27069978›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2016

Feasibility of low-dose CT with model-based iterative image reconstruction in follow-up of patients with testicular cancer.

Kevin P Murphy, Lee Crush, Siobhan B O'Neill, James Foody, Micheál Breen, Adrian Brady, Paul J Kelly, Derek G Power, Paul Sweeney, Jackie Bye and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of radiology open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. A Task-dependent Investigation on Dose and Texture in CT Image Reconstruction.IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Recommendations for followup of stage I and II seminoma: The Princess Margaret Cancer Centre approach.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2018
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Kevin P MurphyDepartment of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland; Department of Radiology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland; Department of Radiology, Mercy University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Lee CrushDepartment of Radiology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland; Department of Radiology, Mercy University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Siobhan B O'NeillDepartment of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland; Department of Radiology, Mercy University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
James FoodyDepartment of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Micheál BreenDepartment of Radiology, Boston Children's Hospital, 300 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Adrian BradyDepartment of Radiology, Mercy University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Paul J KellyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Derek G PowerDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cork and Mercy University Hospitals, Cork, Ireland.
Paul SweeneyDepartment of Urology, Mercy University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Jackie ByeGeneral Electric Healthcare Technologies, Herdfordshire, UK.
Owen J O'ConnorDepartment of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland; Department of Radiology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland; Department of Radiology, Mercy University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Michael M MaherDepartment of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland; Department of Radiology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland; Department of Radiology, Mercy University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Kevin N O'ReganDepartment of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe examine the performance of pure model-based iterative reconstruction with reduced-dose CT in follow-up of patients with early-stage testicular cancer.

methodsSixteen patients (mean age 35.6 ± 7.4 years) with stage I or II testicular cancer underwent conventional dose (CD) and low-dose (LD) CT acquisition during CT surveillance. LD data was reconstructed with model-based iterative reconstruction (LD-MBIR). Datasets were objectively and subjectively analysed at 8 anatomical levels. Two blinded clinical reads were compared to gold-standard assessment for diagnostic accuracy.

resultsMean radiation dose reduction of 67.1% was recorded. Mean dose measurements for LD-MBIR were: thorax - 66 ± 11 mGy cm (DLP), 1.0 ± 0.2 mSv (ED), 2.0 ± 0.4 mGy (SSDE); abdominopelvic - 128 ± 38 mGy cm (DLP), 1.9 ± 0.6 mSv (ED), 3.0 ± 0.6 mGy (SSDE). Objective noise and signal-to-noise ratio values were comparable between the CD and LD-MBIR images. LD-MBIR images were superior (p < 0.001) with regard to subjective noise, streak artefact, 2-plane contrast resolution, 2-plane spatial resolution and diagnostic acceptability. All patients were correctly categorised as positive, indeterminate or negative for metastatic disease by 2 readers on LD-MBIR and CD datasets.

conclusionsMBIR facilitated a 67% reduction in radiation dose whilst producing images that were comparable or superior to conventional dose studies without loss of diagnostic utility.

Indexed as

Iterative reconstructionLow-dose computed tomographyModel-based iterative reconstructionRadiation doseTesticular cancer

Identifiers

PMID27069978
PMCPMC4811850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.