ArticleJournal of computer assisted tomography
Comparison Between Weight-Based Variable-Voltage and Fixed Volume-Voltage Protocols in Cancer Surveillance Computed Tomography.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study assessed whether the weight-based, variable tube voltage (Bayer MEDRAD Centargo SMART) protocol compared with a fixed contrast, fixed tube voltage (referred to as the 'OLD') protocol for cancer patients undergoing CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis (CAP) scans could reduce contrast dose, without a reduction in contrast enhancement.
methodsA total of 149 oncology patients, each underwent 2 surveillance CT CAP scans using both the OLD and SMART protocols, typically with a 3-month interval between scans. Contrast volume was recorded for each protocol as well as the CT attenuation measurement Hounsfield unit (HU) at the ascending aorta, pulmonary trunk, right atrial appendage, middle hepatic vein, main portal vein, and renal cortex, as well as dose-length product (DLP, mGy/cm) and CT Dose Index volume (CTDIvol, mGy).
resultsThe SMART protocol used less contrast per patient with a median volume of 80 versus 100 mL representing a 20% absolute reduction. Quantitative contrast enhancement measurements demonstrated non-inferior HU values in the SMART protocol at all sites. This was achieved with a 19% DLP and 9% CTDIvol decrease in radiation exposure.
conclusionsThe weight-based contrast, variable tube voltage protocol effectively reduces contrast volume without increasing radiation dose and does not reduce contrast enhancement.
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.