Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37796327›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024

Optimal conspicuity of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in virtual monochromatic imaging reconstructions on a photon-counting detector CT: comparison to conventional MDCT.

Josua A Decker, Judith Becker, Mark Härting, Bertram Jehs, Franka Risch, Luca Canalini, Claudia Wollny, Christian Scheurig-Muenkler, Thomas Kroencke, Florian Schwarz and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Josua A DeckerDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Augsburg, University of Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156, Augsburg, Germany.
Judith BeckerDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Augsburg, University of Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156, Augsburg, Germany.
Mark HärtingDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Augsburg, University of Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156, Augsburg, Germany.
Bertram JehsDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Augsburg, University of Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156, Augsburg, Germany.
Franka RischDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Augsburg, University of Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156, Augsburg, Germany.
Luca CanaliniDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Augsburg, University of Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156, Augsburg, Germany.
Claudia WollnyDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Augsburg, University of Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156, Augsburg, Germany.
Christian Scheurig-MuenklerDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Augsburg, University of Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156, Augsburg, Germany.
Thomas KroenckeDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Augsburg, University of Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156, Augsburg, Germany. thomas.kroencke@uk-augsburg.de.ORCID 0000-0003-4889-1036
Florian Schwarz *Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Augsburg, University of Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156, Augsburg, Germany.
Stefanie Bette *Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Augsburg, University of Augsburg, Stenglinstr. 2, 86156, Augsburg, Germany.
University of Augsburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo analyze the conspicuity of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in virtual monoenergetic images (VMI) on a novel photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT) in comparison to energy-integrating CT (EID-CT).

methodsInclusion criteria comprised initial diagnosis of PDAC (reference standard: histopathological analysis) and standardized contrast-enhanced CT imaging either on an EID-CT or a PCD-CT. Patients were excluded due to different histopathological diagnosis or missing tumor delineation on CT. On the PCD-CT, 40-190 keV VMI reconstructions were generated. Image noise, tumor-to-pancreas ratio (TPR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were analyzed by ROI-based measurements in arterial and portal venous contrast phase. Two board-certified radiologist evaluated image quality and tumor delineation at both, EID-CT and PCD-CT (40 and 70 keV).

resultsThirty-eight patients (mean age 70.4 years ± 10.3 [range 45-91], 27 males; PCD-CT: n=19, EID-CT: n=19) were retrospectively included. On the PCD-CT, tumor conspicuity (reflected by low TPR and high CNR) was significantly improved at low-energy VMI series (≤ 70 keV compared to > 70 keV), both in arterial and in portal venous contrast phase (P < 0.001), reaching the maximum at 40 keV. Comparison between PCD-CT and EID-CT showed significantly higher CNR on the PCD-CT in portal venous contrast phase at < 70 keV (P < 0.016). On the PCD-CT, tumor conspicuity was improved in portal venous contrast phase compared to arterial contrast phase especially at the lower end of the VMI spectrum (≤ 70 keV). Qualitative analysis revealed that tumor delineation is improved in 40 keV reconstructions compared to 70 keV reconstructions on a PCD-CT.

conclusionPCD-CT VMI reconstructions (≤ 70 keV) showed significantly improved conspicuity of PDAC in quantitative and qualitative analysis in both, arterial and portal venous contrast phase, compared to EID-CT, which may be important for early detection of tumor tissue in clinical routine. Tumor delineation was superior in portal venous contrast phase compared to arterial contrast phase.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalPancreatic NeoplasmsRadiography, Dual-Energy Scanned ProjectionAgedHumansMaleRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRetrospective StudiesSignal-To-Noise RatioTomography, X-Ray ComputedContrast-enhanced CTPancreatic ductal adenocarcinomaPhoton-counting detector computed tomographyVirtual monoenergetic imaging

Identifiers

PMID37796327
PMCPMC10789688
OpenAlexW4387357794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.