ArticleEuropean radiology2020
Rapid study assessment in follow-up whole-body computed tomography in patients with multiple myeloma using a dedicated bone subtraction software.
Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging of Multiple Myeloma: Present and Future.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- Floccinaucinihilipilification: is there a continuing role for the radiographic skeletal survey?Skeletal radiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe diagnostic reading of follow-up low-dose whole-body computed tomography (WBCT) examinations in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is a demanding process. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and benefit of a novel software program providing rapid-subtraction maps for bone lesion change detection.
methodsSixty patients (66 years ± 10 years) receiving 120 WBCT examinations for follow-up evaluation of MM bone disease were identified from our imaging archive. The median follow-up time was 292 days (range 200-641 days). Subtraction maps were calculated from 2-mm CT images using a nonlinear deformation algorithm. Reading time, correctly assessed lesions, and disease classification were compared to a standard reading software program. De novo clinical reading by a senior radiologist served as the reference standard. Statistics included Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Cohen's kappa coefficient, and calculation of sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value, and accuracy.
resultsCalculation time for subtraction maps was 84 s ± 24 s. Both readers reported exams faster using subtraction maps (reader A, 438 s ± 133 s; reader B, 1049 s ± 438 s) compared to PACS software (reader A, 534 s ± 156 s; reader B, 1486 s ± 587 s; p < 0.01). The course of disease was correctly classified by both methods in all patients. Sensitivity for lesion detection in subtraction maps/conventional reading was 92%/80% for reader A and 88%/76% for reader B. Specificity was 98%/100% for reader A and 95%/96% for reader B.
conclusionA software program for the rapid-subtraction map calculation of follow-up WBCT scans has been successfully tested and seems suited for application in clinical routine. Subtraction maps significantly facilitated reading of WBCTs by reducing reading time and increasing sensitivity. KEY POINTS: • A novel algorithm has been successfully applied to generate motion-corrected bone subtraction maps of whole-body low-dose CT scans in less than 2 min. • Motion-corrected bone subtraction maps significantly facilitate the reading of follow-up whole-body low-dose CT scans in multiple myeloma by reducing reading time and increasing sensitivity.
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.