ArticleJournal of computer assisted tomography
Underreporting of Coronary Stents in LDCT for Lung Cancer Screening and Their Differentiation From Severe Coronary Artery Calcifications.
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. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lung Cancer (LC) screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) is recommended in smokers and former smokers irrespective of cardiovascular disease (CVD) history. Differentiating coronary stents from moderate-to-severe coronary artery calcifications (CACs) on LDCT examinations can be challenging and have clinical implications. We hypothesized that coronary stents are inadequately reported in screening LDCT examinations and conducted a retrospective analysis nested within an LC screening study. Moreover, we devised a postprocessing procedure to differentiate coronary stents and severe CACs in LDCT examinations and assessed its potential. Among 592 participants with detailed CVD history at baseline, the LDCT report mentioned coronary stents in 13 and severe CACs in 60 of 73 (12.3%). Two radiologists independently and blindly reviewed the LDCT examinations, providing a binary judgment (yes/no) on stent presence using images optimized with a window setting optimized to view detail in bone (window width 1800 to 2000 HU and window level 300 to 500 HU) reformatted parallel or perpendicular to the coronary arteries. The review identified stents in 26 subjects and was inconclusive in 2. On images viewed with such "bone" window setting, stents appeared as "tram-track" (large stents) or "pencil-lead" (narrow stents) configurations in parallel views, and as a "rim-of-wheel" shape in perpendicular views. In contrast, CACs lacked these configurations due to their irregular distribution along vessel walls. No difference in attenuation was observed between stents and severe CACs. Concordance with the history of PTCA with stent placement was 42.8% (12/28) for the original LDCT reports and 92.8% (26/28) for the review ( P =0.0014). Our study suggests that coronary stents are often under-reported in screening LDCT, but their characteristic shapes on images viewed with a "bone" window setting with multiplanar reformatting can aid in accurate identification.
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.