ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Thoracic-abdominopelvic contrast-enhanced dual-source computed tomography with a high-pitch acquisition protocol and free breathing for reducing motion artifacts and scan time in patients with cancer: a prospective study.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) is critical for cancer management. Although high-pitch dual-source computed tomography (DSCT) effectively reduces radiation and enhances image quality, its clinical benefits in free-breathing thoracic-abdominopelvic scans remain unclear. This study investigated DSCT-based high-pitch CECT in terms of image quality and scan efficiency in non-breath-holding patients with cancer. Methods: A total of 169 patients with cancer who underwent thoracic-abdominopelvic contrast-enhanced DSCT were enrolled: 84 non-breath-holding patients underwent a free-breathing high-pitch examination (Group 1: pitch 3.0), and 85 breath-holding capable patients matched for age, sex, and body mass index underwent the standard-pitch examination with breathing instructions (Group 2: pitch 1.0). Subjective image scores were graded using 5-point scales. Noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and scan time were compared. Results: Compared to Group 2, Group 1 demonstrated significantly fewer motion artifacts in both the lung (P=0.027) and the mediastinum (P<0.001), with a particularly notable reduction and less graded severity distribution in the mediastinum (P<0.001). Chest noise levels were significantly lower in Group 1 than in Group 2 (P<0.001). The SNR (measured in the aortic arch and erector spinae of the chest for noncontrast phase (NCP) and arterial phase (AP) and in the gluteus maximus of the pelvis for the venous phase) and CNR (measured in the aortic arch and erector spinae of the chest for NCP and AP) of Group 1 were significantly higher (P<0.001) than those of Group 2. The average scan time in Group 1 was up to 81.4% lower than that of Group 2. Conclusions: High-pitch DSCT in non-breath-holding patients with cancer can largely reduce scan time while preserving image quality and maintaining a lower effective radiation dose. For non-breath-holding patients, the high-pitch DSCT may greatly improve image quality and the success rate of CT examinations.
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.