ArticleBMC cancer2021
Conspicuity of malignant pleural mesothelioma in contrast enhanced MDCT - arterial phase or late phase?
Article in BMC cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Classifying diagnostic pitfalls in juxtapleural CT lesions: A root cause.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Review
- Dual-Phase Enhanced CT-Derived Radiomics Nomogram for Progression-Free Survival Prediction in Stage IV Lung Adenocarcinoma.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Radiomics nomogram for the prediction of Ki-67 index in advanced non-small cell lung cancer based on dual-phase enhanced computed tomography.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Tips and Tricks in Thoracic Radiology for Beginners: A Findings-Based Approach.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo determine if late phase is superior to arterial phase intraindividually regarding conspicuity of MPM in contrast enhanced chest MDCT.
methods28 patients with MPM were included in this retrospective study. For all patients, chest CT in standard arterial phase (scan delay ca. 35 s) and abdominal CT in portal venous phase (scan delay ca. 70 s) was performed. First, subjective analysis of tumor conspicuity was done independently by two radiologists. Second, objective analysis was done by measuring Hounsfield units (HU) in tumor lesions and in the surrounding tissue in identical locations in both phases. Differences of absolute HUs in tumor lesions between phases and differences of contrast (HU in lesion - HU in surrounding tissue) between phases were determined. HU measurements were compared using paired t-test for related samples. Potential confounding effects by different technical and epidemiological parameters between phases were evaluated performing a multiple regression analysis.
resultsSubjective analysis: In all 28 patients and for both readers conspicuity of MPM was better on late phase compared to arterial phase. Objective analysis: MPM showed a significantly higher absolute HU in late phase (75.4 vs 56.7 HU, p < 0.001). Contrast to surrounding tissue was also significantly higher in late phase (difference of contrast between phases 18.5 HU, SD 10.6 HU, p < 0.001). Multiple regression analysis revealed contrast phase and tube voltage to be the only significant independent predictors for tumor contrast.
conclusionsIn contrast enhanced chest-MDCT for MPM late phase scanning seems to provide better conspicuity and higher contrast to surrounding tissue compared to standard arterial phase scans.
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.