Literature DB >> 19620438

CT quality assurance in the lung screening study component of the National Lung Screening Trial: implications for multicenter imaging trials.

David S Gierada1, Kavita Garg, Hrudaya Nath, Diane C Strollo, Richard M Fagerstrom, Melissa B Ford.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the effect of implementing an imaging quality assurance program on CT image quality in the Lung Screening Study component of the National Lung Screening Trial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Lung Screening Trial is a multicenter study in which 53,457 subjects at increased risk of lung cancer were randomized to undergo three annual chest CT or radiographic screenings for lung cancer to determine the relative effect of use of the two screening tests on lung cancer mortality. Of the 26,724 subjects randomized to the CT screening arm of the National Lung Screening Trial, the Lung Screening Study randomized 17,309 through 10 screening centers. The others were randomized through the American College of Radiology Imaging Network. Quality assurance procedures were implemented that included centralized review of a random sample of 1,504 Lung Screening Study CT examinations. Quality defect rates were tabulated.
RESULTS: Quality defect rates ranged from 0% (section reconstruction interval) to 7.1% (reconstructed field of view), and most errors were sporadic. However, a recurrently high effective tube current-time product setting at one center, excessive streak artifact at one center, and excessive section thickness at one center were detected and corrected through the quality assurance process. Field-of-view and scan length errors were less frequent over the second half of the screening period (p < 0.01 for both parameters, two-tailed, paired Student's t test). Error rates varied among the screening centers and reviewers for most parameters evaluated.
CONCLUSION: Our experience suggested that centralized monitoring of image quality is helpful for reducing quality defects in multicenter trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19620438      PMCID: PMC2841058          DOI: 10.2214/AJR.08.1995

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  7 in total

Review 1.  Chest radiography as the comparison for spiral CT in the National Lung Screening Trial.

Authors:  Timothy R Church
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Economic, legal, and ethical rationales for the ACRIN national lung screening trial of CT screening for lung cancer.

Authors:  Bruce J Hillman
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Description and implementation of a quality control program in an imaging-based clinical trial.

Authors:  Christopher H Cagnon; Dianna D Cody; Michael F McNitt-Gray; J Anthony Seibert; Philip F Judy; Denise R Aberle
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Image quality assurance in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial network of the National Lung Screening Trial.

Authors:  Stephen M Moore; David S Gierada; Kenneth W Clark; G James Blaine
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine A Gatsonis; Martin J Yaffe; R Edward Hendrick; Anna N A Tosteson; Dennis G Fryback; Lawrence W Bassett; Janet K Baum; Emily F Conant; Roberta A Jong; Murray Rebner; Carl J D'Orsi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-06-16       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  Data quality assurance, monitoring, and reporting.

Authors:  J J Gassman; W W Owen; T E Kuntz; J P Martin; W P Amoroso
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1995-04

7.  Feasibility of retinoids for the treatment of emphysema study.

Authors:  Michael D Roth; John E Connett; Jeanine M D'Armiento; Robert F Foronjy; Paul J Friedman; Jonathan G Goldin; Thomas A Louis; Jenny T Mao; Josephia R Muindi; George T O'Connor; Joe W Ramsdell; Andrew L Ries; Steven M Scharf; Neil W Schluger; Frank C Sciurba; Melissa A Skeans; Robert E Walter; Christine H Wendt; Robert A Wise
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 9.410

  7 in total
  12 in total

1.  Short- and long-term effects of clinical audits on compliance with procedures in CT scanning.

Authors:  Antonio Oliveri; Nigel Howarth; Pierre Alain Gevenois; Denis Tack
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-11-14       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Cancer risks after radiation exposure in middle age.

Authors:  Igor Shuryak; Rainer K Sachs; David J Brenner
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-10-25       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 3.  Quality assurance and quantitative imaging biomarkers in low-dose CT lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Chara E Rydzak; Samuel G Armato; Ricardo S Avila; James L Mulshine; David F Yankelevitz; David S Gierada
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-10-27       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening.

Authors:  Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Jonathan D Clapp; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 5.  Impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening on lung cancer-related mortality.

Authors:  Asha Bonney; Reem Malouf; Corynne Marchal; David Manners; Kwun M Fong; Henry M Marshall; Louis B Irving; Renée Manser
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-08-03

6.  Implementing low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer in Canada: implications of alternative at-risk populations, screening frequency, and duration.

Authors:  W K Evans; W M Flanagan; A B Miller; J R Goffin; S Memon; N Fitzgerald; M C Wolfson
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2016-06-09       Impact factor: 3.677

7.  Results of initial low-dose computed tomographic screening for lung cancer.

Authors:  Timothy R Church; William C Black; Denise R Aberle; Christine D Berg; Kathy L Clingan; Fenghai Duan; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; David S Gierada; Gordon C Jones; Irene Mahon; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks; Amanda Jain; Sarah Baum
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-05-23       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 8.  Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography for primary care providers.

Authors:  Thomas B Richards; Mary C White; Ralph S Caraballo
Journal:  Prim Care       Date:  2014-03-26       Impact factor: 2.907

9.  Retrospective quality control review of FDG scans in the imaging sub-study of PALETTE EORTC 62072/VEG110727: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial.

Authors:  Ivalina Hristova; Ronald Boellaard; Wouter Vogel; Felix Mottaghy; Sandrine Marreaud; Sandra Collette; Patrick Schöffski; Roberta Sanfilippo; Raz Dewji; Winette van der Graaf; Wim J G Oyen
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-02-25       Impact factor: 9.236

10.  From randomized trials to the clinic: is it time to implement individual lung-cancer screening in clinical practice? A multidisciplinary statement from French experts on behalf of the French intergroup (IFCT) and the groupe d'Oncologie de langue francaise (GOLF).

Authors:  S Couraud; A B Cortot; L Greillier; V Gounant; B Mennecier; N Girard; B Besse; L Brouchet; O Castelnau; P Frappé; G R Ferretti; L Guittet; A Khalil; P Lefebure; F Laurent; S Liebart; O Molinier; E Quoix; M-P Revel; B Stach; P-J Souquet; P Thomas; J Trédaniel; E Lemarié; G Zalcman; F Barlési; B Milleron
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2012-11-07       Impact factor: 32.976

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.