ライフサイエンスコーパス: low-dose CT

1 e reduction filters decreased image noise at low-dose CT.

2 l sensitivity (P = .181) at conventional and low-dose CT.

3 It enables additional studies based on low-dose CT.

4 ion with a recovery coefficient based on the low-dose CT.

5 ned by manually delineating the aorta in the low-dose CT.

6 sed for the respiration-triggered sequential low-dose CT.

7 s underwent supine abdominal radiography and low-dose CT.

8 to allocation of PET/CT findings by means of low-dose CT.

9 only 2 annual examinations, particularly for low-dose CT.

10 tuitive appeal in lung cancer screening with low-dose CT.

11 With very-low-dose CT (80 kVp, 5 mAs) for the adult phantom, under

12 nuation correction can be obtained with very-low-dose CT (80 kVp, 5 mAs, 1.5:1 pitch), and such corre

13 Excellent agreement between high- and low-dose CT acquisitions (R=0.87, P<0.001) was demonstra

14 The ratio between medial doses in low dose CT and chest X-ray was 11.56.

15 andomly assigned to a study group (26,715 to low-dose CT and 26,724 to chest radiography); 26,309 par

16 ity and specificity were 93.8% and 73.4% for low-dose CT and 73.5% and 91.3% for chest radiography, r

17 Packets that were isoattenuated at low-dose CT and a low number of packets (</=12) were bot

18 existing literature on screening by means of low-dose CT and chest radiography, suggesting that a red

19 proved study, verbal consent for prospective low-dose CT and waivers of consent for retrospective rev

20 rials of screening with chest radiography or low-dose CT are currently under way and will better info

21 lung adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions in the low-dose CT arm of the National Lung Screening Trial.

22 at abdominal radiography was reported, with low-dose CT as the reference standard.

23 entre screening trial comparing three annual low-dose CT assessments with three annual chest radiogra

24 in 233 (23% [95% CI 21-26]) participants by low-dose CT at baseline, compared with 68 (7% [5-9]) by

25 Low-dose CT can greatly improve the likelihood of detect

26 Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT can save lives.

27 ars +/- 8.1 [standard deviation]) undergoing low-dose CT colonographic screening performed without co

28 participants (507 men, 475 women) underwent low-dose CT colonography after noncathartic bowel prepar

29 Low-dose CT colonography was performed with 64-detector

30 ically delineate the anatomic volumes on the low-dose CT component.

31 terogeneity features in both the PET and the low-dose CT components of PET/CT.

32 s compared with no screening, screening with low-dose CT cost an additional $1,631 per person (95% co

33 ocation of PET findings were performed using low-dose CT data for PET/CT and Dixon MRI sequences for

34 view board-approved study, both clinical and low-dose CT data were evaluated in a cohort of heavy smo

35 -enhanced ultrasonography (SonoVue, Bracco), low-dose CT enterography (LDCTE), assessment of laborato

36 of 7% of participants with a false-positive low-dose CT examination and 4% with a false-positive che

37 Participants underwent three annual low-dose CT examinations of the chest and upper abdomen.

38 tive probability of 1 or more false-positive low-dose CT examinations was 21% (95% CI, 19% to 23%) af

39 The repeatability of PET and low-dose CT features should be carefully considered when

40 ing with known cancers underwent PET/CT with low-dose CT for attenuation correction immediately follo

41 and scatter correction were performed using low-dose CT for the PET/CT and segmented Dixon MR imagin

42 omatic persons at risk for lung cancer using low-dose CT from 1993 through 2005, and from 1994 throug

43 estimation of the LBM using the data of the low-dose CT from PET/CT acquired over standard acquisiti

44 A total of 7191 participants (27.3%) in the low-dose CT group and 2387 (9.2%) in the radiography gro

45 ed in 27.9% and 16.8% of participants in the low-dose CT group and in 6.2% and 5.0% of participants i

46 A and 57 (31.1%) were stage III or IV in the low-dose CT group at T1; in the radiography group, 31 (2

47 diagnosed in 292 participants (1.1%) in the low-dose CT group versus 190 (0.7%) in the radiography g

48 In the low-dose CT group, the sensitivity was 94.4%, the specif

49 rms, and cumulative false-positive rates for low-dose CT have never been formally reported.

50 Certain imaging modalities, most notably low-dose CT, have shown promise in reducing radiation do

51 the use of cine CT, which acquires multiple low-dose CT images during a respiratory cycle.

52 Low-dose CT images of abdominal lesions in 19 consecutiv

53 ction (FBP) with an optimized protocol using low-dose CT images reconstructed with adaptive statistic

54 Low-dose CT images were analyzed by using software that

55 These baseline low-dose CT images were postprocessed with six noise red

56 Baseline low-dose CT images were significantly worse than standar

57 esion conspicuity and appearance on baseline low-dose CT images.

58 Whole-body PET and low-dose CT imaging were performed 15 minutes after (18)

59 hich would permit replacing chest X-ray with low dose CT in certain research screening projects shoul

60 eared isoattenuated to the bowel contents at low-dose CT in 16 (30%) of the 53 suspects with positive

61 Packets were detected at low-dose CT in 53 (16%) suspects.

62 isk individuals, but the necessity of yearly low-dose CT in all eligible individuals is uncertain.

63 ned the cost-effectiveness of screening with low-dose CT in the NLST.

64 imited by low sensitivity when compared with low-dose CT in the screening of people suspected of carr

65 g by low-radiation-dose computed tomography (low-dose CT) in people at high risk of lung cancer.

66 Low-dose CT is acceptable for pulmonary nodule identific

67 Low-dose CT is an effective imaging alternative to abdom

68 In our view, low-dose CT is currently the best imaging modality for p

69 d to ensure the successful implementation of low-dose CT lung cancer screening in Europe.

70 munity to adopt before the implementation of low-dose CT lung cancer screening.

71 The estimated lung radiation dose from low-dose CT lung examinations corresponds to a dose rang

72 Screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT may increase the rate of lung cancer diagnos

73 sive biomedical imaging technologies such as low-dose CT, molecularly targeted PET, MRI, and the func

74 ules and lung cancer in the initial, helical low-dose CT of the chest as well as the analysis of the

75 ar imaging, SPECT, and SPECT with integrated low-dose CT of the upper abdomen (acquired with a hybrid

76 )F-FDG PET/CT scans (whole-body imaging with low-dose CT) of 24 consecutive patients with newly diagn

77 Random assignment to low-dose CT or chest radiography with baseline and 1 rep

78 rgo annual screening, with the use of either low-dose CT or chest radiography, for 3 years.

79 By using low-dose CT performed for lung cancer screening in older

80 ast-enhanced CT (CECT) and PET combined with low-dose CT (PET/CT) at baseline, after 2 cycles of chem

81 ast-enhanced CT (CECT) and PET combined with low-dose CT (PET/CT) at baseline, after 2 cycles of chem

82 of all NLST participants who had received a low-dose CT prevalence (T0) screen.

83 Participants with a negative low-dose CT prevalence screen had a lower incidence of l

84 ween screens in participants with a negative low-dose CT prevalence screen might be warranted.

85 Screening with low-dose CT prevented the greatest number of deaths from

86 proach should be used for future lung cancer low-dose CT programmes; that individuals who enter scree

87 Therefore, low-dose CT protocols could be a solution.

88 hy, the two annual incidence screenings with low-dose CT resulted in a decrease in the number of adva

89 eteen (36%) of the 53 suspects with positive low-dose CT results had fewer than 12 packets.

90 The last low-dose CT scan before the diagnosis of lung adenocarci

91 All patients underwent an additional low-dose CT scan for CACS and SPECT MPI.

92 y-specific recovery coefficient based on the low-dose CT scan, method 3 was an enlarged volume of int

93 smoking were randomized to have five annual low-dose CT scans (study group) or no screening (control

94 lung nodules detected on the first screening low-dose CT scans are malignant or will be found to be m

95 lung nodules detected on baseline screening low-dose CT scans are malignant.

96 rs; age range, 39-75 years) were selected on low-dose CT scans that were compressed to levels of 10:1

97 32 of 38) of missed cancers in a database of low-dose CT scans were detected correctly.

98 The standard low-dose CT scans were processed with the iMAR algorithm

99 s of any size that were detected on baseline low-dose CT scans were tracked.

100 A database of 38 low-dose CT scans with 50 lung nodules was obtained from

101 rom CT scans from the screening (which uses "low-dose" CT scans) and also from follow-up scans used t

102 ants who had a negative prevalence (initial) low-dose CT screen to explore whether less frequent scre

103 747 suspicious pulmonary nodules detected at low-dose CT screening (17 892 examinations).

104 Annual low-dose CT screening for lung cancer has been recommend

105 isted of 26 231 participants assigned to the low-dose CT screening group who had undergone their T0 s

106 Low-dose CT screening has been associated with a 20% red

107 The lung cancers missed at low-dose CT screening in this series generally were very

108 ary lung cancers were found during an annual low-dose CT screening program and confirmed histopatholo

109 reatment; and planning for implementation of low-dose CT screening should start throughout Europe as

110 6,604 participants in the NLST who underwent low-dose CT screening, as compared with the 26,554 parti

111 from two cohorts of participants undergoing low-dose CT screening.

112 three alternative strategies: screening with low-dose CT, screening with radiography, and no screenin

113 ker discovery trial (NYU LCBC) that included low-dose CT-screening of high-risk individuals over 50 y

114 and ameliorates beam-hardening artifacts at low-dose CT, such filters are limited by a compromise in

115 radiography (standing) and scout images from low-dose CT (supine) were taken on the same day.

116 SPECT/CT scintigraphy (SPECT with integrated low-dose CT) to evaluate whether SPECT/CT and additional

117 SPECT with integrated low-dose CT using (99m)Tc-MAA is beneficial in radioembo

118 shape and heterogeneity features in PET and low-dose CT varied greatly among metrics.

119 shape and heterogeneity features in PET and low-dose CT varied greatly among metrics.

120 Low-dose CT was more sensitive in detecting early-stage

121 inarily analyse the usefulness of Whole-Body Low-Dose CT (WBLDCT) in the evaluation of patients with

122 and informed consent, chest radiographs and low-dose CT were done for each participant.

123 women; mean age, 63 years) without cancer at low-dose CT were included in an observer study.

124 ity and number of packets (</= 12 or >12) at low-dose CT were recorded and analyzed to determine whet

125 Lung cancers missed at low-dose CT were very difficult to detect, even in an ob

126 FDG PET/CT examinations (with low-dose CT) were performed on days 1 and 14 of admissio

127 Low-dose CT without contrast agent was used for anatomic

128 stimated that screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT would cost $81,000 per QALY gained, but we a