An interventional study of PCD-CT and PET CT in Head and Neck Cancer (H&N), sponsored by Medical University of South Carolina. Suspended at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-07-27.
Sponsored by Medical University of South Carolina · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other
This pilot study evaluates the clinical utility of photon counting detector computed tomography (PCD-CT) in PET-CT imaging for head and neck cancer. Twenty adult patients undergoing standard-of-care PET-CT will also receive PCD-CT imaging. The study compares image quality and diagnostic confidence between conventional energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT) and PCD-CT for attenuation correction and anatomical imaging.
2,344 studies on the registry are indexed under Head and Neck Neoplasms; 551 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 20 is below the median of 47 across 1,751 interventional studies indexed under Head and Neck Neoplasms.
Browse Head and Neck Neoplasms studies →Medical University of South Carolina is the lead sponsor of 852 studies on the registry; 165 are open to participants now.
Of its 128 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 101 (79%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
To compare the image quality of PET images constructed using non-contrast PCD-CT image data to PET images constructed using conventional standard-of-care non-contrast EID-CT image data by performing a quantitative analysis of measurable image quality parameters.
Other: PCD-CT
To compare the subjective image quality of PET images constructed using non-contrast PCD-CT image data to PET images constructed using conventional standard-of-care non-contrast EID-CT image data by performing a qualitative analysis of diagnostic confidence as determined by board-certified radiologists/nuclear medicine physicians during image review.
Other: PET CT
A direct qualitative comparison of the subjective PET image quality will be performed. Two blinded board-certified radiologists/nuclear medicine physicians will independently review PET images constructed using non-contrast PCD-CT data as well as PET images constructed using standard of care non-contrast EID-CT data in random order. Both raters will assess PET images subjectively regarding overall image quality using a five-point Likert scale. The rating will be defined as: (1) non-diagnostic - insufficient diagnostic confidence, (2) poor - low diagnostic confidence, (3) moderate - average diagnostic confidence; (4) good - high diagnostic confidence, and (5) excellent - full diagnostic confidence.
To compare the subjective image quality of PET images constructed using non-contrast PCD-CT image data to PET images constructed using conventional standard-of-care non-contrast EID-CT image data by performing a qualitative analysis of diagnostic confidence as determined by board-certified radiologists/nuclear medicine physicians during image review.
improve PET image w/ non-contrast PCD-CT data
We expect that the subjective PET image quality will be improved by using non-contrast PCD-CT data for construction resulting in higher diagnostic confidence; demonstrating a case for the integration of PCD-CT into standard of care clinical PET-CT imaging in the future. There will be no direct benefit to study participants and the outcome will not be directly reported to the treatment team or patient and will not impact treatment or care received.
Time frame: 2 years
This study is suspended, as verified in Jul 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Medical University of South Carolina