PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the feasibility and efficiency of dual energy (DE) bone and plaque removal in head and neck CT angiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 20 patients with suspected carotid stenoses received head and neck DE-CTA as part of their pre-interventional workup. Visual grading using multiplanar reformations (MPR), thick slab maximum intensity projections (MIP) and quantitative vessel analysis (QVA) of stenoses was performed prior and after DE bone removal. Results were evaluated for the detection of relevant stenoses (vessel area reduction >70%). Vessel segmentation errors were analyzed. RESULTS: Segmentation errors occurred in 19% of all vessel segments. Nevertheless, most post-bone removal artifacts could be recognized using the MPR technique for reading. Compared to MPR reading prior to bone removal, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values after bone removal were 100%, 98%, 88% and 100% for MPR reading and 100%, 91%, 63% and 100% for exclusive MIP reading, respectively. There was a good agreement between the QVA results prior and post-DE plaque removal (r(2)=0.8858). CONCLUSION: DE bone and plaque removal for head and neck angiography is feasible and offers a rapid and highly sensitive overview over vascular head and neck studies. Due to a slightly limited specificity of the MIP technique due to segmentation errors, possible stenoses should be verified and graded using MPR techniques.
PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the feasibility and efficiency of dual energy (DE) bone and plaque removal in head and neck CT angiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 20 patients with suspected carotid stenoses received head and neck DE-CTA as part of their pre-interventional workup. Visual grading using multiplanar reformations (MPR), thick slab maximum intensity projections (MIP) and quantitative vessel analysis (QVA) of stenoses was performed prior and after DE bone removal. Results were evaluated for the detection of relevant stenoses (vessel area reduction >70%). Vessel segmentation errors were analyzed. RESULTS:Segmentation errors occurred in 19% of all vessel segments. Nevertheless, most post-bone removal artifacts could be recognized using the MPR technique for reading. Compared to MPR reading prior to bone removal, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values after bone removal were 100%, 98%, 88% and 100% for MPR reading and 100%, 91%, 63% and 100% for exclusive MIP reading, respectively. There was a good agreement between the QVA results prior and post-DE plaque removal (r(2)=0.8858). CONCLUSION: DE bone and plaque removal for head and neck angiography is feasible and offers a rapid and highly sensitive overview over vascular head and neck studies. Due to a slightly limited specificity of the MIP technique due to segmentation errors, possible stenoses should be verified and graded using MPR techniques.
Authors: Stephanie Kulpe; Martin Dierolf; Eva-Maria Braig; Benedikt Günther; Klaus Achterhold; Bernhard Gleich; Julia Herzen; Ernst Rummeny; Franz Pfeiffer; Daniela Pfeiffer Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2020-04-21
Authors: Yu Chen; Huadan Xue; Zheng-yu Jin; Jie Zhang; Hao Sun; Xuan Wang; Zhu-hua Zhang; Da-ming Zhang; Guang-ming Lu; Zhao-qi Zhang; U Joseph Schoepf; Andreas M Bucher; Christopher D Wolla; Yun Wang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 3.240