ライフサイエンスコーパス: low-dose CT

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

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

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

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

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

6 d applied to automatically detect airways at low-dose CT.

7 es were monitored for 2 years with follow-up low-dose CT.

8 old standard and compared with that of ultra-low-dose CT.

9 screening via non-contrast, thin collimation low-dose CT.

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

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

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

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

14 The bone compartment was defined by means of low-dose CT.

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

16 1 wk of [(123)I]MIBG scintigraphy and SPECT/low-dose CT, [(18)F]MFBG LAFOV PET/ultra-low-dose CT was

17 tients (group 1) were acquired with an ultra-low dose CT (32-MDCT, 130 kV, tin filter and iterative r

18 tients (group 1) were acquired with an ultra-low dose CT (32-MDCT, 130kV, tin filter and iterative re

19 At low-dose CT, 56 294 of 62 480 (90.1%) airways of the ref

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

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

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

23 ute appendicitis underwent both standard and low-dose CT allowing interpatient comparison.

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

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

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

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

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

29 d to the costal pleura (CP-NCNs) at baseline low-dose CT and to identify key features of benignity.

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

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

32 phic SPECT and PET imaging with accompanying low-dose CT are required.

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

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

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

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

37 tructed with different frame durations using low-dose CT-based and LSO-TX-based attenuation maps (mu-

38 based features is feasible at lung screening low-dose CT.(C) RSNA, 2021.

39 automatic assessment of EAT on non-contrast low-dose CT calcium score images.

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

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

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

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

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

45 The image noise was higher in the ultra-low-dose CT compared to standard-dose CT.

46 ed mortality with lung cancer screening with low-dose CT compared with chest radiography or no screen

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

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

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

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

51 dard-dose CT data from visit 1 (model I) and low-dose CT data from visit 3 (model II).

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

53 In our series of asymptomatic patients, low-dose CT did not add any value to the results of RT-P

54 Low-dose CT enabled significant radiation dose reduction

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

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

57 (DL) algorithm that uses a current and prior low-dose CT examination to estimate 3-year malignancy ri

58 urements automatically derived from baseline low-dose CT examinations added predictive value for lung

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

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

61 usion A DL algorithm using current and prior low-dose CT examinations was more effective at estimatin

62 uals eligible for lung cancer screening with low-dose CT face a higher cardiovascular mortality risk.

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

64 Conclusion Ultra-low-dose CT fluoroscopy has the potential to reduce radi

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

66 We aimed to assess the implementation of low-dose CT for lung cancer screening in a high-risk pop

67 nalogous to mammography for breast cancer or low-dose CT for lung cancer.

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

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

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

71 udy included 5564 participants who underwent low-dose CT from the National Lung Screening Trial betwe

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

73 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

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

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

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

77 the obtained results, it can be stated that low-dose, CT-guided transthoracic biopsy of lung and ple

78 A total of 135 low-dose, CT-guided transthoracic lung and pleural lesio

79 Low-dose CT has shown promise in detecting early stage l

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

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

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

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

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

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

86 prediction of pulmonary nodule malignancy on low-dose CT images were analyzed retrospectively.

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

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

89 of standard CT images and in 96.77% of ultra-low-dose CT images with proportional worsening of the im

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

91 tive Bayesian algorithm, and manually in the low-dose CT images.

92 re, for improved lung nodule segmentation in low-dose CT images.

93 tive Bayesian algorithm, and manually in the low-dose CT images.

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

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

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

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

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

99 the distribution of bronchial parameters at low-dose CT in individuals with healthy lungs from a Dut

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

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

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

103 linical settings: lung cancer screening with low-dose CT, incidentally detected pulmonary nodules, an

104 Low-dose CT is acceptable for pulmonary nodule identific

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

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

107 le for investigation of airway phenotypes at low-dose CT.Keywords: Airway, Airway Count, Airway Detec

108 FDG PET/CT scans were performed using both low-dose CT (LD-CT) and ULD-CT protocols.

109 Screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) in a high-risk population, as defined

110 alue of baseline visual emphysema scoring at low-dose CT (LDCT) in lung cancer screening cohorts is u

111 Low-dose CT (LDCT) is widely accepted as the preferred m

112 valuate the feasibility of leveraging serial low-dose CT (LDCT) scans to develop a radiomics-based re

113 lated clinical findings of participants in a low-dose CT (LDCT) screening program.

114 fication strategy can increase efficiency of low-dose CT (LDCT) screening.

115 Annual low-dose CT (LDCT) screenings are recommended for high-r

116 Two large randomized controlled trials of low-dose CT (LDCT)-based lung cancer screening in high-r

117 Background The low-dose CT (<=3 mGy) screening report of 1000 Early Lun

118 invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening in an ethnically and s

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

120 d mortality in individuals undergoing serial low-dose CT lung cancer screening.

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

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

123 inforcement Learning, Lung Cancer Screening, Low-Dose CT, Machine Learning (C) RSNA, 2024 Supplementa

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

125 When using the automated low-dose CT method, TAC values of 347, 342, 323, and 266

126 airways were significant contributors in the low-dose CT model.

127 es in COPD diagnosis using standard-dose and low-dose CT models.

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

129 essment of lung cancer screening noncontrast low-dose CT of the chest (LDCT) scans, but the utility o

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

131 treatment planning CT, CAC screening CT, and low-dose CT of the chest.

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

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

134 Ultra-low-dose CT offered higher (> 90%) sensitivity for lesio

135 Low-dose CT or chest radiography screening with a screen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

146 be obtained by using a dose-minimizing ultra-low-dose CT protocol and volume measurement based on dis

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

148 Unenhanced low-dose CT protocols have shown similar diagnostic accu

149 Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT reduces lung cancer mortality, but screening

150 Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT reduces mortality among high-risk current an

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

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

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

154 n addition to approximately 3.7 mSv from one low-dose CT scan done for attenuation correction.

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

156 For validation purposes, a low-dose CT scan was also performed.

157 6 mSv from the PET tracer and 3.7 mSv from 1 low-dose CT scan).

158 mSv from the PET tracer and 3.7 mSv from one low-dose CT scan).

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

160 ery Calcium Score, Radiation Dose Reduction, Low-Dose CT Scan, Tin Filter, kV-Independent Supplementa

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

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

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

164 Low-dose CT scans are routinely performed with PET for a

165 a large collection of lung cancer screening low-dose CT scans for lung nodule classification with an

166 of improved spatial resolution in whole-body low-dose CT scans for viewing multiple myeloma by using

167 /- 9; 123 women); one data set consisting of low-dose CT scans from the COPDGene phase III cohort (n

168 ta sets consisting of matching standard- and low-dose CT scans from the Genetic Epidemiology of COPD

169 inforcement learning model to analyze serial low-dose CT scans in lung cancer screening.

170 gnancy risk of pulmonary nodules detected on low-dose CT scans in lung cancer screening.

171 trospective review was performed of baseline low-dose CT scans obtained in 8730 participants in the M

172 lic competition for lung cancer detection in low-dose CT scans reached performance close to that of r

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

174 obtained EAT volume and density from serial low-dose CT scans using a validated automated deep learn

175 32 of 38) of missed cancers in a database of low-dose CT scans were detected correctly.

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

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

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

179 Model II, trained on low-dose CT scans, achieved an AUC of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.83

180 ompleted lung function tests underwent chest low-dose CT scans.

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

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

183 747 suspicious pulmonary nodules detected at low-dose CT screening (17 892 examinations).

184 for I-ELCAP participants enrolled in annual low-dose CT screening and diagnosed with a first primary

185 which enrolled 31 567 participants in annual low-dose CT screening between 1992 and 2005.

186 stimates of the comparative effectiveness of low-dose CT screening compared with chest radiography in

187 The study enrolled individuals who underwent low-dose CT screening for lung cancer between July 31, 2

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

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

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

191 ith first primary lung cancer through annual low-dose CT screening in the expanded I-ELCAP cohort.

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

193 e mid to late 1990s, however, indicates that low-dose CT screening of high-risk patients enables dete

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

195 At 12 months, the episode sensitivity of our low-dose CT screening protocol for detecting lung cancer

196 ohort clinical studies have established that low-dose CT screening reduces lung cancer mortality, lar

197 Low-dose CT screening reduces lung cancer mortality.

198 Background Low-dose CT screening reduces lung cancer-related deaths

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

200 ence of bronchiectasis in smokers undergoing low-dose CT screening was high, and respiratory symptoms

201 6,604 participants in the NLST who underwent low-dose CT screening, as compared with the 26,554 parti

202 report the results of the baseline round of low-dose CT screening.

203 ith first primary lung cancer through annual low-dose CT screening.

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

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

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

207 isease, CT, Deep Learning, Generalizability, Low-Dose CT, Segmentation, Thorax, LungClinical trial re

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

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

210 ematic screening of populations at risk with low-dose CT, the implementation of novel surgical and ra

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

212 tes the feasibility and efficacy of an ultra-low-dose CT (ULD-CT) protocol, incorporating a Sn filter

213 pose To evaluate the accuracy of chest ultra-low-dose CT (ULDCT) as compared with normal-dose CT in t

214 ld, and radiation impact of additional ultra-low-dose CT (ULDCT) covering the entire thorax during co

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

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

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

218 d the estimated absolute rate reduction with low-dose CT vs chest radiography was 71 deaths per 100 0

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

220 Diagnostic accuracy of contrast enhanced low-dose CT was not inferior to standard CT in diagnosin

221 ECT/low-dose CT, [(18)F]MFBG LAFOV PET/ultra-low-dose CT was performed 1 h after injection (1.5-3 MBq

222 Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT was recommended by the UK National Screening

223 The mean radiation dose of low-dose CT was significantly lower compared with standa

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

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

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

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

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

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

230 ion dose (mSv) was many times lower in ultra-low-dose CT when compared to standard-dose CT (mean +/-

231 mission tomography-CT, or tissue sampling vs low-dose CT) within 15 months (Lung-RADS score, 1 or 2),

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

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