Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34427744›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2022

Dual-energy CT in differentiating benign sinonasal lesions from malignant ones: comparison with simulated single-energy CT, conventional MRI, and DWI.

Peng Wang, Zuohua Tang, Zebin Xiao, Rujian Hong, Rong Wang, Yuzhe Wang, Yang Zhan

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Peng Wang *Department of Radiology, Eye & ENT Hospital of Shanghai Medical School, Fudan University, 83 Fenyang Road, Shanghai, 200031, People's Republic of China.
Zuohua Tang *Department of Radiology, Eye & ENT Hospital of Shanghai Medical School, Fudan University, 83 Fenyang Road, Shanghai, 200031, People's Republic of China. tzh518sunny@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4687-5905
Zebin XiaoDepartment of Radiology, Eye & ENT Hospital of Shanghai Medical School, Fudan University, 83 Fenyang Road, Shanghai, 200031, People's Republic of China.
Rujian HongDepartment of Radiology, Eye & ENT Hospital of Shanghai Medical School, Fudan University, 83 Fenyang Road, Shanghai, 200031, People's Republic of China.
Rong WangThe Shanghai Institution of Medical Imaging, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Yuzhe WangDepartment of Radiology, Eye & ENT Hospital of Shanghai Medical School, Fudan University, 83 Fenyang Road, Shanghai, 200031, People's Republic of China.
Yang ZhanThe Shanghai Institution of Medical Imaging, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Eye & ENT Hospital of Fudan University · CNShanghai Medical College of Fudan University · CNJiangsu University · CN

Funding

Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality 17411962100
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore the value of dual-energy CT (DECT) for differentiating benign sinonasal lesions from malignant ones, and to compare this finding with simulated single-energy CT (SECT), conventional MRI (cMRI), and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI).

methodsPatients with sinonasal lesions (38 benign and 34 malignant) who were confirmed by histopathology underwent DECT, cMRI, and DWI. DECT-derived parameters (iodine concentration (IC), effective atomic number (Eff-Z), 40-180 keV (20-keV interval), virtual non-enhancement (VNC), slope (k), and linear-mixed 0.3 (Mix-0.3)), DECT morphological features, cMRI characteristics, and ADC value of benign and malignant tumors were compared using t test or chi-square test. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was compared using the Z test to select the optimal diagnostic approach.

resultsSignificantly higher DECT-derived single parameters (IC, Eff-Z, 40 keV, 60 keV, 80 keV, slope (k), Mix-0.3) were found in malignant lesions than those of benign sinonasal lesions (all p < 0.004, Bonferroni correction). Combined quantitative parameters (IC, Eff-Z, 40 keV, 60 keV, 80 keV, slope (k)) can improve the diagnostic efficiency for discriminating these two entities. Combination of DECT quantitative parameters and morphological features can further improve the overall diagnostic performance, with AUC, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 0.935, 96.67%, 90.00%, and 93.52%. Moreover, the AUC of DECT was higher than those of Mix-0.3 (simulated SECT), cMRI, DWI, and cMRI+DWI.

conclusionsCompared with simulated SECT, cMRI, and DWI, DECT appears to be a more accurate imaging technique for differentiating benign from malignant sinonasal lesions. KEY POINTS: • DE can differentiate benign sinonasal lesions from malignant ones based on DECT-derived qualitative parameters. • DECT appears to be more accurate in the diagnosis of sinonasal lesions when compared with simulated SECT, cMRI, and DWI.

Indexed as

Diffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetic Resonance ImagingDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansRetrospective StudiesROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityTomography, X-Ray ComputedDiffusion magnetic resonance imagingMagnetic resonance imagingParanasal sinusRadiography, dual-energy scanned projection

Identifiers

PMID34427744
OpenAlexW3196104108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.