Patient-specific image denoising for ultra-low-dose CT-guided lung biopsies

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
pp. 2145-2155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Green ◽  
Edith M. Marom ◽  
Eli Konen ◽  
Nahum Kiryati ◽  
Arnaldo Mayer
2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 2101-2109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara K Frisch ◽  
Karin Slebocki ◽  
Kamal Mammadov ◽  
Michael Puesken ◽  
Ingrid Becker ◽  
...  

Objective To evaluate the use of ultra-low-dose computed tomography (ULDCT) for CT-guided lung biopsy versus standard-dose CT (SDCT). Methods CT-guided lung biopsies from 115 patients (50 ULDCT, 65 SDCT) were analyzed retrospectively. SDCT settings were 120 kVp with automatic mAs modulation. ULDCT settings were 80 kVp with fixed exposure (20 mAs). Two radiologists evaluated image quality (i.e., needle artifacts, lesion contouring, vessel recognition, visibility of interlobar fissures). Complications and histological results were also evaluated. Results ULDCT was considered feasible for all lung interventions, showing the same diagnostic accuracy as SDCT. Its mean total radiation dose (dose–length product) was significantly reduced to 34 mGy-cm (SDCT 426 mGy-cm). Image quality and complication rates ( P = 0.469) were consistent. Conclusions ULDCT for CT-guided lung biopsies appears safe and accurate, with a significantly reduced radiation dose. We therefore recommend routine clinical use of ULDCT for the benefit of patients and interventionalists.


Author(s):  
Romulo Marconato Stringhini ◽  
Daniel Welfer ◽  
Marcos Cordeiro d'Ornellas ◽  
Daniel Fernando Tello Gamarra

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. S53
Author(s):  
D.H. Jin ◽  
T. Miller ◽  
G.E. Watkins ◽  
J. Karst ◽  
U.E. Oyoyo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Dose ◽  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Matsuda ◽  
Tensho Yamao ◽  
Mitsuru Shakado ◽  
Yoko Shigemoto ◽  
Kyoji Okita ◽  
...  

Abstract BackgroundCentiloid (CL) scaling has become a standardized quantitative measure in amyloid PET because it facilitates the direct comparison of results across institutions, even when different analytical methods or tracers are used. Standard volumes of interest must be used to calculate the CL scale after the anatomic standardization of amyloid PET images using coregistered MRI; if the MRI is unavailable, the CL scale cannot be accurately calculated. This study sought to determine the substitutability of low-dose CT, which is used to correct PET attenuation in PET/CT equipment, by evaluating the measurement accuracy when low-dose CT is used as an alternative to MRI in the calculation of the CL scale. Amyloid PET images obtained using 18F-flutemetamol from 24 patients with possible or probable Alzheimer’s disease were processed to calculate the CL scale using 3D T1-weighted MRI and low-dose CT of PET/CT. CLMRI and CLCT were respectively defined as the use of MRI and CT for anatomic standardization and compared. Trial registration: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials, jRCTs031180321. Registered 18 March 2019, https://jrct.niph.go.jp/latest-detail/jRCTs031180321.ResultsA Bland–Altman plot showed that CLCT was slightly but significantly underestimated (mean ± standard deviation, −1.7 ± 2.4; p < 0.002) compared with CLMRI. The 95% limits of agreement ranged from −2.8 to −0.7. Pearson correlation analysis showed a highly significant correlation of r = 0.998 between CLCT and CLMRI (p < 0.001). The linear regression equation was CLMRI = 1.027 × CLCT + 0.762. In a Bland-Altman plot, Spearman correlation analysis did not identify a significant association between the CLMRI versus CLCT difference and the CL load (ρ = −0.389, p = 0.060). This slight underestimation of CLCT may derive from slightly higher uptake when the cerebellum is used as a reference area in CT-based anatomically standardized PET images versus MRI-based images.ConclusionsLow-dose CT of PET/CT can substitute for MRI in the anatomic standardization used to calculate the CL scale from amyloid PET, although a slight underestimation occurs.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-85
Author(s):  
Zhenlong Du ◽  
Chao Ye ◽  
Yujia Yan ◽  
Xiaoli Li

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. S131-S132
Author(s):  
P. Laeseke ◽  
M. Wagner ◽  
F. Lee ◽  
Y. Wu ◽  
C. Strother ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document