ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2018
Optimization of a secondary VOI protocol for lung imaging in a clinical CT scanner.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2018. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- X-ray microtomosynthesis of unstained pathology tissue samples.Journal of microscopy · 2021Article
- Ultra-Small Lung Cysts Impair Diffusion Without Obstructing Air Flow in Lymphangioleiomyomatosis.Chest · 2021Article
- Clinical CT underestimation of the percentage volume occupied by cysts in patients with lymphangioleiomyomatosis.Clinical imaging · 2020Article
- Regional Ultrahigh-Resolution Rescan in a Clinical Whole-Body CT Scanner Using a Contact Detector Insert.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2019Article
- Influences of scan-position on clinical ultra-high-resolution CT scanning: a preliminary study.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- CT grading of lung disease in lymphangioleiomyomatosis.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We present a solution to meet an unmet clinical need of an in-situ "close look" at a pulmonary nodule or at the margins of a pulmonary cyst revealed by a primary (screening) chest CT while the patient is still in the scanner. We first evaluated options available on current whole-body CT scanners for high resolution screening scans, including ROI reconstruction of the primary scan data and HRCT, but found them to have insufficient SNR in lung tissue or discontinuous slice coverage. Within the capabilities of current clinical CT systems, we opted for the solution of a secondary, volume-of-interest (VOI) protocol where the radiation dose is focused into a short-beam axial scan at the z position of interest, combined with a small-FOV reconstruction at the xy position of interest. The objective of this work was to design a VOI protocol that is optimized for targeted lung imaging in a clinical whole-body CT system. Using a chest phantom containing a lung-mimicking foam insert with a simulated cyst, we identified the appropriate scan mode and optimized both the scan and recon parameters. The VOI protocol yielded 3.2 times the texture amplitude-to-noise ratio in the lung-mimicking foam when compared to the standard chest CT, and 8.4 times the texture difference between the lung mimicking and reference foams. It improved details of the wall of the simulated cyst and better resolution in a line-pair insert. The Effective Dose of the secondary VOI protocol was 42% on average and up to 100% in the worst-case scenario of VOI positioning relative to the standard chest CT. The optimized protocol will be used to obtain detailed CT textures of pulmonary lesions, which are biomarkers for the type and stage of lung diseases.
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.