Cargando…

Comparison of the ultra-low-dose Veo algorithm with the gold standard filtered back projection for detecting pulmonary asbestos-related conditions: a clinical observational study

OBJECTIVES: Radiation delivered during CT is a major concern, especially for individuals undergoing repeated screening. We aimed to compare a new ultra-low-dose algorithm called Veo with the gold standard filtered back projection (FBP) for detecting pulmonary asbestos-related conditions. SETTING: Un...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tekath, Marielle, Dutheil, Frédéric, Bellini, Romain, Roche, Antoine, Pereira, Bruno, Naughton, Geraldine, Chamoux, Alain, Michel, Jean-Luc
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4039784/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24879827
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004980
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: Radiation delivered during CT is a major concern, especially for individuals undergoing repeated screening. We aimed to compare a new ultra-low-dose algorithm called Veo with the gold standard filtered back projection (FBP) for detecting pulmonary asbestos-related conditions. SETTING: University Hospital CHU G. Montpied, Clermont-Ferrand, France PARTICIPANTS: Asbestos-exposed workers were recruited following referral to screening for asbestos-related conditions. Two acquisitions were performed on a 64-slice CT: the gold standard FBP followed by Veo reconstruction. OUTCOME MEASURES: Two radiologists independently assessed asbestos-related abnormalities, pulmonary nodules, radiation doses and image quality (noise). RESULTS: We included 27 asbestos-exposed workers (63.3±6.5 years with 11.9±9.7 years of asbestos exposure). We observed 297 pleural plaques in 20 participants (74%). All patients (100%) had pulmonary nodules, totalling 167 nodules. Detection rates did not differ for pleural plaques (Veo 87% vs FBP 97%, NS), pleural thickening (100% for both) and pulmonary nodules (80% for both). Interstitial abnormalities were depicted less frequently with Veo than FBP. False negative and false positive did not exceed 2.7%. Compared with FBP, Veo decreased the radiation dose up to 87% (Veo 0.23±0.07 vs FBP 1.83±0.88 mSv, p<0.001). The objective image noise also decreased with Veo as much as 23% and signal-to-noise ratio increased up to 33%. CONCLUSIONS: A low-dose CT with Veo reconstruction substantially reduced radiation. Veo compared favourably with FBP in detecting pleural plaques, pleural thickening and pulmonary nodules. These results should be confirmed on a larger sample size before the use of Veo in clinical routine practice in asbestos-related conditions, especially regarding the low prevalence of interstitial abnormalities in this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01955018.