ArticleEuropean radiology2019
CT temporal subtraction improves early detection of bone metastases compared to SPECT.
Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning-based diagnosis of osteoblastic bone metastases and bone islands in computed tomograph images: a multicenter diagnostic study.European radiology · 2023Article
- The Efficacy of CT Temporal Subtraction Images for Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Article
- Temporal subtraction CT with nonrigid image registration improves detection of bone metastases by radiologists: results of a large-scale observer study.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- CT temporal subtraction: techniques and clinical applications.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Article
- An analysis of clinical values of MRI, CT and X-ray in differentiating benign and malignant bone metastases.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Rapid study assessment in follow-up whole-body computed tomography in patients with multiple myeloma using a dedicated bone subtraction software.European radiology · 2020Article
- Incidence of patients with bone metastases at diagnosis of solid tumors in adults: a large population-based study.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
- Temporal subtraction of computed tomography images improves detectability of bone metastases by radiology residents.European radiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare observer performance of detecting bone metastases between bone scintigraphy, including planar scan and single-photon emission computed tomography, and computed tomography (CT) temporal subtraction (TS).
methodsData on 60 patients with cancer who had undergone CT (previous and current) and bone scintigraphy were collected. Previous CT images were registered to the current ones by large deformation diffeomorphic metric mapping; the registered previous images were subtracted from the current ones to produce TS. Definitive diagnosis of bone metastases was determined by consensus between two radiologists. Twelve readers independently interpreted the following pairs of examinations: NM-pair, previous and current CTs and bone scintigraphy, and TS-pair, previous and current CTs and TS. The readers assigned likelihood levels to suspected bone metastases for diagnosis. Sensitivity, number of false positives per patient (FPP), and reading time for each pair of examinations were analysed for evaluating observer performance by performing the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Figure-of-merit (FOM) was calculated using jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis.
resultsThe sensitivity of TS was significantly higher than that of bone scintigraphy (54.3% vs. 41.3%, p = 0.006). FPP with TS was significantly higher than that with bone scintigraphy (0.189 vs. 0.0722, p = 0.003). FOM of TS tended to be better than that of bone scintigraphy (0.742 vs. 0.691, p = 0.070).
conclusionSensitivity of TS in detecting bone metastasis was significantly higher than that of bone scintigraphy, but still limited to 54%. TS might be superior to bone scintigraphy for early detection of bone metastasis. KEY POINTS: • Computed tomography temporal subtraction was helpful in early detection of bone metastases. • Sensitivity for bone metastasis was higher for computed tomography temporal subtraction than for bone scintigraphy. • Figure-of-merit of computed tomography temporal subtraction was better than that of bone scintigraphy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30888486What 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.