کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
4229655 | 1610061 | 2016 | 7 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
![عکس صفحه اول مقاله: Standard-dose vs. low-dose CT protocols in the evaluation of localized lung lesions: Capability for lesion characterization—iLEAD study Standard-dose vs. low-dose CT protocols in the evaluation of localized lung lesions: Capability for lesion characterization—iLEAD study](/preview/png/4229655.png)
ObjectiveTo determine the lesion characterization capability by low dose CT for localized lung lesions in comparison with standard dose CT.Subjects and methodsApproval for this study was granted by our Institutional Review Board. Fifty-two consecutive patients (36 males and 16 females, median age of 71 years.) who had CT examinations for evaluation of lung lesions comprise the study population. Two chest CT scans were performed with current time product of 50 and 150 mAs at 120 kVp, with the same scan length with a 16 detector-row CT scanner. Three readers evaluated 52 target lesions and assigned an overall impression score to each target lesion, using a 5 point scale from 1 (definitely benign) to 5 (definitely malignant). Six features of the lesions including lesion type, margin characteristics, calcification, lobulation, speculation, and pleural indentation were also reported with 5-point scales. The weighted kappa analyses and receiver operating characteristic analysis were used for analysis.ResultsThe mean kappa value between low-and standard-dose CT was 0.82 for overall impression of the lesions, showing almost perfect agreement. Area under the curve of low-dose CT (Az = 0.74) had no significant difference from that of standard-dose CT (Az = 0.74) (p = 0.61). The kappa values for six lesion features ranged from 0.45 to 0.83, showing moderate to almost perfect agreement.ConclusionLesion characterization capability by low-dose CT images was comparable to that by standard-dose CT images and therefore sufficient for evaluation of localized lung lesions.
Journal: European Journal of Radiology Open - Volume 3, 2016, Pages 67–73