ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Angio-CT does not increase patient radiation exposure compared to conventional cone-beam CT for intra-arterial liver procedures.
Article in European radiology, 2026. 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
objectivesTo evaluate patient radiation dose during intra-arterial liver procedures using Computed Tomography angiography (angio-CT) compared with C-arm Cone-Beam CT (CBCT). MATERIAL AND
methodsThis retrospective study included bland embolization and radioembolization mapping procedures performed between November 2021 and December 2024 using dual-phase angio-CT or single-phase CBCT on a hybrid angiography suite. Effective dose was calculated by converting dose-area and dose-length product using conversion factors. Fluoroscopy-only (2D), CBCT/angio-CT (3D) effective dose and total effective dose were compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Bootstrap resampling and permutation testing with Monte Carlo error propagation were applied to assess the robustness of 3D and total effective dose comparisons.
resultsNinety-two procedures were included: 48 in the CBCT group and 44 in the angio-CT group. The 2D effective dose was comparable. The 3D effective dose was 4.1-fold lower in the angio-CT group (median 9.85 [IQR: 5.37-22.6 mSv] vs 39.9 mSv [IQR: 21.2-69.6 mSv], p < 0.001), resulting in 1.6-fold reduction in total effective dose for procedures performed by angio-CT (median 34.6 [IQR: 23.7-54.3 mSv] vs 55.9 mSv [IQR: 37.6-103 mSv], p < 0.001). After dose conversion uncertainty correction, corrected p-values were < 0.001 for 3D effective dose and 0.053 for the total dose.
conclusionHybrid angiography suites incorporating angio-CT significantly reduced 3D effective dose compared to single-phase CBCT imaging. However, the total effective dose did not remain significant after uncertainty correction. Therefore, the use of angiography suites incorporating dual-phase angio-CT does not appear to change patient radiation exposure during intra-arterial liver procedures. KEY POINTS: Question What is the effect of integrating angio-CT into hybrid angiography suites on patient radiation exposure? Findings Dual-phase angio-CT integration into intra-arterial liver therapy workflows does not increase overall procedural radiation exposure and is associated with a decreased 3D effective dose. Clinical relevance Angio-CT offers several clinical advantages, and existing literature demonstrates improved image quality compared with CBCT. This study shows that dual-phase angio-CT does not increase patient radiation exposure compared to single-phase CBCT, supporting its use when available.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42823562What 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.