Extended pitch thoracic helical CT 47

Paul S. Singer, Kenneth D. Hopper, Judith A. Jozefiak, Sabrina V. Patrone, Claudia Kasales, Rickhesvar Mahraj, Thomas R. Tenhave, Danielle A. Tully

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The objective of this study was to test whether extended 1.5 pitch helical computed tomography (CT) can be used for routine thoracic CT without a significant loss of clinical scan quality. Thirty consecutive patients presenting for contract thoracic CT were computer randomized into one of three groups: conventional, 1.0 pitch helical, and 1.5 pitch helical. All other variables, including kV, mA, slice thickness and reconstruction interval, and contrast administration, were kept constant. The studies were randomized to five independent, blinded, experienced radiologists who rated visualization 25 normal structures, and up to five pathologic findings per patient. In addition, each reader evaluated the studies' contrast enhancement, low contrast sensitivity, linear resolution, motion artifact, noise, and overall quality. The visualization score for all normal and overall for pathological lesions did not vary between groups. The three groups were not equivalent for several individual pathologic categories. However, these differences were not consistently in favor of one technique over the other two. The overall score for scan quality was not significantly different between the three groups. Extended 1.5 pitch thoracic helical CT provides equivalent quality versus either 1.0 pitch helical thoracic CT allows faster scanning, greater patient coverage, and the use of reduced amounts of intravenous contrast.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)11-14
Number of pages4
JournalClinical Imaging
Volume22
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1998

Fingerprint

Spiral Computed Tomography
Thorax
Tomography
Contrast Sensitivity
Contracts
Artifacts
Noise

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Singer, P. S., Hopper, K. D., Jozefiak, J. A., Patrone, S. V., Kasales, C., Mahraj, R., ... Tully, D. A. (1998). Extended pitch thoracic helical CT 47. Clinical Imaging, 22(1), 11-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-7071(97)00064-8
Singer, Paul S. ; Hopper, Kenneth D. ; Jozefiak, Judith A. ; Patrone, Sabrina V. ; Kasales, Claudia ; Mahraj, Rickhesvar ; Tenhave, Thomas R. ; Tully, Danielle A. / Extended pitch thoracic helical CT 47. In: Clinical Imaging. 1998 ; Vol. 22, No. 1. pp. 11-14.
@article{3f241477d3214b11affbd3355be51a3c,
title = "Extended pitch thoracic helical CT 47",
abstract = "The objective of this study was to test whether extended 1.5 pitch helical computed tomography (CT) can be used for routine thoracic CT without a significant loss of clinical scan quality. Thirty consecutive patients presenting for contract thoracic CT were computer randomized into one of three groups: conventional, 1.0 pitch helical, and 1.5 pitch helical. All other variables, including kV, mA, slice thickness and reconstruction interval, and contrast administration, were kept constant. The studies were randomized to five independent, blinded, experienced radiologists who rated visualization 25 normal structures, and up to five pathologic findings per patient. In addition, each reader evaluated the studies' contrast enhancement, low contrast sensitivity, linear resolution, motion artifact, noise, and overall quality. The visualization score for all normal and overall for pathological lesions did not vary between groups. The three groups were not equivalent for several individual pathologic categories. However, these differences were not consistently in favor of one technique over the other two. The overall score for scan quality was not significantly different between the three groups. Extended 1.5 pitch thoracic helical CT provides equivalent quality versus either 1.0 pitch helical thoracic CT allows faster scanning, greater patient coverage, and the use of reduced amounts of intravenous contrast.",
author = "Singer, {Paul S.} and Hopper, {Kenneth D.} and Jozefiak, {Judith A.} and Patrone, {Sabrina V.} and Claudia Kasales and Rickhesvar Mahraj and Tenhave, {Thomas R.} and Tully, {Danielle A.}",
year = "1998",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0899-7071(97)00064-8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "11--14",
journal = "Clinical Imaging",
issn = "0899-7071",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

Singer, PS, Hopper, KD, Jozefiak, JA, Patrone, SV, Kasales, C, Mahraj, R, Tenhave, TR & Tully, DA 1998, 'Extended pitch thoracic helical CT 47', Clinical Imaging, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 11-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-7071(97)00064-8

Extended pitch thoracic helical CT 47. / Singer, Paul S.; Hopper, Kenneth D.; Jozefiak, Judith A.; Patrone, Sabrina V.; Kasales, Claudia; Mahraj, Rickhesvar; Tenhave, Thomas R.; Tully, Danielle A.

In: Clinical Imaging, Vol. 22, No. 1, 01.01.1998, p. 11-14.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Extended pitch thoracic helical CT 47

AU - Singer, Paul S.

AU - Hopper, Kenneth D.

AU - Jozefiak, Judith A.

AU - Patrone, Sabrina V.

AU - Kasales, Claudia

AU - Mahraj, Rickhesvar

AU - Tenhave, Thomas R.

AU - Tully, Danielle A.

PY - 1998/1/1

Y1 - 1998/1/1

N2 - The objective of this study was to test whether extended 1.5 pitch helical computed tomography (CT) can be used for routine thoracic CT without a significant loss of clinical scan quality. Thirty consecutive patients presenting for contract thoracic CT were computer randomized into one of three groups: conventional, 1.0 pitch helical, and 1.5 pitch helical. All other variables, including kV, mA, slice thickness and reconstruction interval, and contrast administration, were kept constant. The studies were randomized to five independent, blinded, experienced radiologists who rated visualization 25 normal structures, and up to five pathologic findings per patient. In addition, each reader evaluated the studies' contrast enhancement, low contrast sensitivity, linear resolution, motion artifact, noise, and overall quality. The visualization score for all normal and overall for pathological lesions did not vary between groups. The three groups were not equivalent for several individual pathologic categories. However, these differences were not consistently in favor of one technique over the other two. The overall score for scan quality was not significantly different between the three groups. Extended 1.5 pitch thoracic helical CT provides equivalent quality versus either 1.0 pitch helical thoracic CT allows faster scanning, greater patient coverage, and the use of reduced amounts of intravenous contrast.

AB - The objective of this study was to test whether extended 1.5 pitch helical computed tomography (CT) can be used for routine thoracic CT without a significant loss of clinical scan quality. Thirty consecutive patients presenting for contract thoracic CT were computer randomized into one of three groups: conventional, 1.0 pitch helical, and 1.5 pitch helical. All other variables, including kV, mA, slice thickness and reconstruction interval, and contrast administration, were kept constant. The studies were randomized to five independent, blinded, experienced radiologists who rated visualization 25 normal structures, and up to five pathologic findings per patient. In addition, each reader evaluated the studies' contrast enhancement, low contrast sensitivity, linear resolution, motion artifact, noise, and overall quality. The visualization score for all normal and overall for pathological lesions did not vary between groups. The three groups were not equivalent for several individual pathologic categories. However, these differences were not consistently in favor of one technique over the other two. The overall score for scan quality was not significantly different between the three groups. Extended 1.5 pitch thoracic helical CT provides equivalent quality versus either 1.0 pitch helical thoracic CT allows faster scanning, greater patient coverage, and the use of reduced amounts of intravenous contrast.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031973020&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031973020&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0899-7071(97)00064-8

DO - 10.1016/S0899-7071(97)00064-8

M3 - Article

C2 - 9421649

AN - SCOPUS:0031973020

VL - 22

SP - 11

EP - 14

JO - Clinical Imaging

JF - Clinical Imaging

SN - 0899-7071

IS - 1

ER -

Singer PS, Hopper KD, Jozefiak JA, Patrone SV, Kasales C, Mahraj R et al. Extended pitch thoracic helical CT 47. Clinical Imaging. 1998 Jan 1;22(1):11-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-7071(97)00064-8