Comparison of low-dose and standard-dose helical CT in the evaluation of pulmonary nodules

72Citations
Citations of this article
32Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of low-dose helical computed tomography by comparing the number of nodules detected at low- and standard-dose CT. The prospective study included 25 patients who were referred to CT scan for the assessment of pulmonary metastases. All patients underwent CT examinations at both standard- (200 mA, 120 kV, collimation 5 mm, table feed 10 mm per rotation) and low-dose (50 mA, 120 kV, collimation 5 mm, table feed 10 mm per rotation). The number of nodules detected at each protocol was recorded. The size of the nodules was measured electronically and categorized as <3, 3-4.9, 5-6.9, 7-9.9, and ≥ 10 mm. Finally, the nodules detected at only standard- or low-dose CT were assessed for the underlying causes of discrepancy. In 25 patients, 533 nodules were detected at standard-dose, whereas 518 nodules were observed at low-dose CT. There were no statistically significant differences in the number of nodules detected at standard- or low-dose CT (p>0.05). Four hundred ninety-one (87.7%) nodules were detected at both standard- or low-dose CT, 42 (7.5%) nodules were observed only at standard-dose CT, and 27 (4.8%) nodules were seen only at low-dose CT. The sensitivity of low-dose CT was 92.5% for all nodules, 88.1% for nodules <5 mm, and 97.4% for nodules ≥5 mm. No significant image artifact interfering with nodule detection was observed at low-dose CT. The low-dose CT protocol used in this study provided images of adequate quality; thus, it can be used reliably in the detection or exclusion of pulmonary nodules.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Karabulut, N., Törü, M., Gelebek, V., Gülsün, M., & Ariyürek, O. M. (2002). Comparison of low-dose and standard-dose helical CT in the evaluation of pulmonary nodules. European Radiology, 12(11), 2764–2769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-002-1368-4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free