ArticleJournal of computer assisted tomography
How Do Cancer-Specific Computed Tomography Protocols Compare With the American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry? An Analysis of Computed Tomography Dose at 2 Cancer Centers.
Article in Journal of computer assisted tomography. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep-learning CT reconstruction in clinical scans of the abdomen: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Pooled it
- Low pitch significantly reduces helical artifacts in abdominal CT.European journal of radiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLittle guidance exists on how to stratify radiation dose according to diagnostic task. Changing dose for different cancer types is currently not informed by the American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry dose survey.
methodsA total of 9602 patient examinations were pulled from 2 National Cancer Institute designated cancer centers. Computed tomography dose (CTDI vol ) was extracted, and patient water equivalent diameter was calculated. N-way analysis of variance was used to compare the dose levels between 2 protocols used at site 1, and three protocols used at site 2.
resultsSites 1 and 2 both independently stratified their doses according to cancer indications in similar ways. For example, both sites used lower doses ( P < 0.001) for follow-up of testicular cancer, leukemia, and lymphoma. Median dose at median patient size from lowest to highest dose level for site 1 were 17.9 (17.7-18.0) mGy (mean [95% confidence interval]) and 26.8 (26.2-27.4) mGy. For site 2, they were 12.1 (10.6-13.7) mGy, 25.5 (25.2-25.7) mGy, and 34.2 (33.8-34.5) mGy. Both sites had higher doses ( P < 0.001) between their routine and high-image-quality protocols, with an increase of 48% between these doses for site 1 and 25% for site 2. High-image-quality protocols were largely applied for detection of low-contrast liver lesions or subtle pelvic pathology.
conclusionsWe demonstrated that 2 cancer centers independently choose to stratify their cancer doses in similar ways. Sites 1 and 2 dose data were higher than the American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry dose survey data. We thus propose including a cancer-specific subset for the dose registry.
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.