PURPOSE: To determine the effect of the number of detectors and peak tube voltage on renal cyst pseudoenhancement in a phantom model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study on computed tomographic (CT) phantoms did not require institutional review board approval. The renal compartments of a CT phantom were filled with iodinated contrast material diluted to attain attenuations of 40, 140, and 240 HU. Saline-filled cylinders simulating cysts of varying diameters (range, 0.7-3.0 cm) were serially suspended in the renal compartments and scanned at 80, 90, 100, 120, and 140 kVp in 16-detector (n = 3) and 64-detector (n = 2) CT scanners. Generalized estimating equations were used to determine predictors of cyst pseudoenhancement (defined as a >10 HU increase in cyst attenuation when the background renal attenuation increased from 40 to 140 or 240 HU). RESULTS: Pseudoenhancement was seen with higher frequency (59 [61%] of 96 cysts vs 52 [39%] of 132 cysts, P < .05) and magnitude (17 vs 13 HU, P < .005) with 64- rather than with 16-detector scanners. Pseudoenhancement was also seen with higher frequency (25 [42%] of 60 cysts vs 11 [18%] of 60 cysts, P < .005) and magnitude (18 vs 13 HU, P < .05) at 140 kVp than at 80 or 90 kVp. Cyst pseudoenhancement increased with higher background renal enhancement (P < .005) and smaller cyst diameter (P < .05). The number of detectors, peak tube voltage, renal parenchymal enhancement level, and cyst diameter were independent predictors of cyst pseudoenhancement. CONCLUSION: Lower tube voltage settings may be useful when accurate differentiation between small renal cysts and solid masses is critical, particularly for 64-detector CT scanners. RSNA, 2008
PURPOSE: To determine the effect of the number of detectors and peak tube voltage on renal cyst pseudoenhancement in a phantom model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study on computed tomographic (CT) phantoms did not require institutional review board approval. The renal compartments of a CT phantom were filled with iodinated contrast material diluted to attain attenuations of 40, 140, and 240 HU. Saline-filled cylinders simulating cysts of varying diameters (range, 0.7-3.0 cm) were serially suspended in the renal compartments and scanned at 80, 90, 100, 120, and 140 kVp in 16-detector (n = 3) and 64-detector (n = 2) CT scanners. Generalized estimating equations were used to determine predictors of cyst pseudoenhancement (defined as a >10 HU increase in cyst attenuation when the background renal attenuation increased from 40 to 140 or 240 HU). RESULTS: Pseudoenhancement was seen with higher frequency (59 [61%] of 96 cysts vs 52 [39%] of 132 cysts, P < .05) and magnitude (17 vs 13 HU, P < .005) with 64- rather than with 16-detector scanners. Pseudoenhancement was also seen with higher frequency (25 [42%] of 60 cysts vs 11 [18%] of 60 cysts, P < .005) and magnitude (18 vs 13 HU, P < .05) at 140 kVp than at 80 or 90 kVp. Cyst pseudoenhancement increased with higher background renal enhancement (P < .005) and smaller cyst diameter (P < .05). The number of detectors, peak tube voltage, renal parenchymal enhancement level, and cyst diameter were independent predictors of cyst pseudoenhancement. CONCLUSION: Lower tube voltage settings may be useful when accurate differentiation between small renal cysts and solid masses is critical, particularly for 64-detector CT scanners. RSNA, 2008
Authors: Joan P Heneghan; Audrey L Spielmann; Douglas H Sheafor; Mark A Kliewer; David M DeLong; Rendon C Nelson Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Jeet Patel; Matthew S Davenport; Shokoufeh Khalatbari; Richard H Cohan; James H Ellis; Joel F Platt Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Ravi K Kaza; Joel F Platt; Mitchell M Goodsitt; Mahmoud M Al-Hawary; Katherine E Maturen; Ashish P Wasnik; Amit Pandya Journal: Radiographics Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Wenli Cai; Hiroyuki Yoshida; Michael E Zalis; Janne Johannes Näppi; Gordon J Harris Journal: Radiographics Date: 2010-03-10 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Stuart G Silverman; Ivan Pedrosa; James H Ellis; Nicole M Hindman; Nicola Schieda; Andrew D Smith; Erick M Remer; Atul B Shinagare; Nicole E Curci; Steven S Raman; Shane A Wells; Samuel D Kaffenberger; Zhen J Wang; Hersh Chandarana; Matthew S Davenport Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Benjamin M Yeh; John A Shepherd; Zhen J Wang; Hui Seong Teh; Robert P Hartman; Sven Prevrhal Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 3.959