Kameda Medical Center Makuhari
Kameda Medical Center Makuhari
Shingyoji M.,Chiba Cancer Center |
Iizasa T.,Chiba Cancer Center |
Higashiyama M.,Japan National Cardiovascular Center Research Institute |
Imamura F.,Japan National Cardiovascular Center Research Institute |
And 8 more authors.
BMC Cancer | Year: 2013
Background: We have recently reported on the changes in plasma free amino acid (PFAA) profiles in lung cancer patients and the efficacy of a PFAA-based, multivariate discrimination index for the early detection of lung cancer. In this study, we aimed to verify the usefulness and robustness of PFAA profiling for detecting lung cancer using new test samples.Methods: Plasma samples were collected from 171 lung cancer patients and 3849 controls without apparent cancer. PFAA levels were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)-electrospray ionization (ESI)-mass spectrometry (MS).Results: High reproducibility was observed for both the change in the PFAA profiles in the lung cancer patients and the discriminating performance for lung cancer patients compared to previously reported results. Furthermore, multivariate discriminating functions obtained in previous studies clearly distinguished the lung cancer patients from the controls based on the area under the receiver-operator characteristics curve (AUC of ROC = 0.731 ~ 0.806), strongly suggesting the robustness of the methodology for clinical use. Moreover, the results suggested that the combinatorial use of this classifier and tumor markers improves the clinical performance of tumor markers.Conclusions: These findings suggest that PFAA profiling, which involves a relatively simple plasma assay and imposes a low physical burden on subjects, has great potential for improving early detection of lung cancer. © 2013 Shingyoji et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Nagata K.,Kameda Medical Center |
Nagata K.,Jichi Medical University |
Nagata K.,Research Center for Cancer Prevention and Screening |
Fujiwara M.,Kameda Medical Center Makuhari |
And 6 more authors.
European Radiology | Year: 2015
Conclusions: Low-dose CTC with iterative reconstruction reduces the radiation dose by 48.5 to 75.1 % without image quality degradation compared to routine-dose CTC with filtered back projection.Key Points: • Low-dose CTC reduces radiation dose ≥48.5 % compared to routine-dose CTC.• Iterative reconstruction improves overall CTC image quality compared with FBP.• Iterative reconstruction reduces overall CTC image noise compared with FBP.• Automated exposure control with iterative reconstruction is useful for low-dose CTC.Objective: To prospectively evaluate the radiation dose and image quality comparing low-dose CT colonography (CTC) reconstructed using different levels of iterative reconstruction techniques with routine-dose CTC reconstructed with filtered back projection.Methods: Following institutional ethics clearance and informed consent procedures, 210 patients underwent screening CTC using automatic tube current modulation for dual positions. Examinations were performed in the supine position with a routine-dose protocol and in the prone position, randomly applying four different low-dose protocols. Supine images were reconstructed with filtered back projection and prone images with iterative reconstruction. Two blinded observers assessed the image quality of endoluminal images. Image noise was quantitatively assessed by region-of-interest measurements.Results: The mean effective dose in the supine series was 1.88 mSv using routine-dose CTC, compared to 0.92, 0.69, 0.57, and 0.46 mSv at four different low doses in the prone series (p < 0.01). Overall image quality and noise of low-dose CTC with iterative reconstruction were significantly improved compared to routine-dose CTC using filtered back projection. The lowest dose group had image quality comparable to routine-dose images. © 2014, European Society of Radiology.
PubMed | Kameda Medical Center Makuhari, Harvard University and Japanese CTC Society
Type: | Journal: The American journal of gastroenterology | Year: 2016
The objective of this study was to assess prospectively the diagnostic accuracy of computer-assisted computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in the detection of polypoid (pedunculated or sessile) and nonpolypoid neoplasms and compare the accuracy between gastroenterologists and radiologists.This nationwide multicenter prospective controlled trial recruited 1,257 participants with average or high risk of colorectal cancer at 14 Japanese institutions. Participants had CTC and colonoscopy on the same day. CTC images were interpreted independently by trained gastroenterologists and radiologists. The main outcome was the accuracy of CTC in the detection of neoplasms 6mm in diameter, with colonoscopy results as the reference standard. Detection sensitivities of polypoid vs. nonpolypoid lesions were also evaluated.Of the 1,257 participants, 1,177 were included in the final analysis: 42 (3.6%) were at average risk of colorectal cancer, 456 (38.7%) were at elevated risk, and 679 (57.7%) had recent positive immunochemical fecal occult blood tests. The overall per-participant sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for neoplasms 6mm in diameter were 0.90, 0.93, 0.83, and 0.96, respectively, among gastroenterologists and 0.86, 0.90, 0.76, and 0.95 among radiologists (P<0.05 for gastroenterologists vs. radiologists). The sensitivity and specificity for neoplasms 10mm in diameter were 0.93 and 0.99 among gastroenterologists and 0.91 and 0.98 among radiologists (not significant for gastroenterologists vs. radiologists). The CTC interpretation time by radiologists was shorter than that by gastroenterologists (9.97 vs. 15.8min, P<0.05). Sensitivities for pedunculated and sessile lesions exceeded those for flat elevated lesions 10mm in diameter in both groups (gastroenterologists 0.95, 0.92, and 0.68; radiologists: 0.94, 0.87, and 0.61; P<0.05 for polypoid vs. nonpolypoid), although not significant (P>0.05) for gastroenterologists vs. radiologists.CTC interpretation by gastroenterologists and radiologists was accurate for detection of polypoid neoplasms, but less so for nonpolypoid neoplasms. Gastroenterologists had a higher accuracy in the detection of neoplasms 6mm than did radiologists, although their interpretation time was longer than that of radiologists.Am J Gastroenterol advance online publication, 25 October 2016; doi:10.1038/ajg.2016.478.