Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31554878›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2019

Concomitant screening of coronary artery disease and lung cancer with a new ultrafast-low-dose Computed Tomography protocol: A pilot randomised trial.

Carlo Gaudio, Alessandra Tanzilli, Mariachiara Mei, Andrea Moretti, Francesco Barillà, Antonio Varveri, Vincenzo Paravati, Gaetano Tanzilli, Antonio Ciccaglioni, Stefano Strano and 3 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03727958 (Simultaneous Coronary Artery Evaluation and Lung Cancer Screening With a New Ultrafast-low-dose Computed Tomography Protocol), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT03727958 naunknown statusnot on this map

Simultaneous Coronary Artery Evaluation and Lung Cancer Screening With a New Ultrafast-low-dose Computed Tomography Protocol: A Pilot Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Roma La SapienzaRan2018 to 2018Enrolled100ConditionsHEAVY SMOKINGArmsLung and coronary CT assessment, Coronary CT assessment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Lung cancer screening in Lithuania: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Incidental findings on lung cancer screening: pictorial essay and systematic checklist.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  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.

Carlo GaudioDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Alessandra TanzilliDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Mariachiara MeiDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Andrea MorettiDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Francesco BarillàDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Antonio VarveriVilla Mafalda Clinical Institute, Rome, Italy.
Vincenzo ParavatiDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Gaetano TanzilliDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Antonio CiccaglioniDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Stefano StranoDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Massimo PellegriniVilla Mafalda Clinical Institute, Rome, Italy.
Paolo BarillariVilla Mafalda Clinical Institute, Rome, Italy.
Francesco PellicciaDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy. f.pelliccia@mclink.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We performed a pilot randomised study to assess the feasibility and radiation exposure of a new computed tomography (CT) protocol that allows screening of both coronary artery disease (CAD) and lung cancer. Current or former heavy smokers at high lung cancer risk with indication to cardiac CT for suspected or known CAD were randomised to undergo concomitant CT evaluation of either cardiac or thoracic area or cardiac CT only. Out of 129 subjects deemed eligible for the study, 110 agreed to participate and were randomised to simultaneous cardiac and lung CT (Gr.A; n = 55) or cardiac CT only (Gr.B; n = 55). The feasibility (i.e. adequate visualization of coronary artery segments) was noninferior with simultaneous cardiac and lung CT compared with the standard cardiac CT (870 of 889 segments [97%] in Gr.A vs 878/890 segments [99%] in Gr.B; mean difference 2.0% [90% confidence interval: -0.3% to 4.1%]). The safety (i.e. effective radiation dose) of the concomitant cardiac and lung CT protocol was noninferior to the standard cardiac CT (1.5 [95% confidence intervals: 1.2-1.7] vs. 1.4 [95% confidence intervals: 1.1-1.6] mSv; mean difference 0.1 mSv [90% confidence interval: -0.2 to 0.3 mSv]). In the two groups, a total of 25 significant (>70%) coronary stenoses were found at cardiac CT (9/55 cases of Gr.A vs 11/55 cases of Gr.B). Pulmonary nodules >2 mm were detected in 7 of the 55 Gr.A subjects. This pilot randomised study shows that concomitant CAD and lung cancer screening by means of a new CT protocol is both feasible and safe, thus allowing a comprehensive evaluation of both cardiac and thoracic regions during one CT scanning only. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03727958).

Indexed as

AgedCoronary AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseaseEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsRadiation DosageTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID31554878
PMCPMC6761135

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.