ArticleEuropean radiology2019
Liver CT perfusion: which is the relevant delay that reduces radiation dose and maintains diagnostic accuracy?
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-based denoising improves image quality in HCC volume perfusion CT without affecting Milan classification.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Current Imaging Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Cancers · 2022Review
- CT liver perfusion in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: can we modify acquisition protocol to reduce patient exposure?European radiology · 2021Article
- Early Assessment of Response to Radiofrequency Ablation With CT Perfusion Imaging in Rabbit VX2 Liver Tumor Model.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesHigh radiation dose during CT perfusion (CTp) studies contributes to prevent CTp application in daily clinical practice. This work evaluates the consequences of scan delay on perfusion parameters and provides guidelines to help reducing the radiation dose by choosing the most appropriate delay.
methodsFifty-nine patients (34 men, 25 women; mean age 68 ± 12) with colorectal cancer, without underlying liver disease, underwent liver CTp, with the acquisition starting simultaneously with iodinated contrast agent injection. Blood flow (BF) and hepatic perfusion index (HPI) were computed on the acquired examinations and compared with those of the same examinations when a variable scan delay (τ) is introduced. Dose length product, CT dose index, and effective dose were also computed on original and delayed examinations.
resultsAltogether, three groups of delays (τ ≤ 4 s, 5 s ≤ τ ≤ 9 s, τ ≥ 10 s) were identified, yielding increasing radiation dose saving (RDS) (RDS ≤ 9.5%, 11.9% ≤ RDS ≤ 21.4%, RDS ≥ 23.8%) and decreasing perfusion accuracy (high (τ ≤ 4 s), medium (5 s ≤ τ ≤ 9 s), low (τ ≥ 10 s)). In particular, single-input and arterial BF and HPI were more insensitive to delay as regards the absolute variations (only 1 ml/min/100 g and 1%, respectively, for τ ≤ 9 s), than portal and total BF.
conclusionUsing delays lower than 4 s does not change perfusion accuracy and conveys unnecessary dose to patients. Conversely, starting the acquisition 9 s after contrast agent injection yields a RDS of about 21%, with no significant losses in perfusion accuracy. KEY POINTS: • Scan delays lower than 4 s do not alter perfusion accuracy and deliver an unnecessary radiation dose to patients. • Radiation dose delivered to patients can be reduced by 21.4% by introducing a 9-s scan delay, while keeping accurate perfusion values. • Using scan delays higher than 10 s, some perfusion parameters (portal and total BF) were inaccurate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31115620What 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.