AIM: To compare pancreatic virtual unenhanced (VUE) and true unenhanced (TUE) images and to calculate the potential dose reduction by omitting the conventional unenhanced scan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-one patients with known or suspected pancreatic masses underwent contrast-enhanced computed-tomography (CT) during unenhanced and portal venous phases acquired in single-energy (SE) mode, and pancreatic parenchymal phase acquired in dual-energy (DE) mode. The image quality (IQ) and image noise (IN) of TUE and VUE images were evaluated. The effective dose of a combined DE/SE dual-phase protocol was compared with that of a theoretical standard SE triple-phase protocol. The results were tested for statistical significance using the Cohen's k, the Wilcoxon's signed rank test, and the paired t-test; p-values of less than 0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Mean TUE and VUE IQ were 1.5 ± 0.6 and 1.6 ± 0.6 (k = 0.891), with no significant difference (p > 0.05). Mean TUE and VUE IN were 12.3 ± 1.6 and 10.3 ± 1.5 HU, and resulted significantly different (p < 0.001). Mean effective doses for a combined DE/SE dual-phase protocol and SE triple-phase protocol were 8.9 ± 2.4 mSv (range 4.8-16.2 mSv) and 12.1 ± 3.1 mSv (range 6.4-21.1 mSv). The calculated mean dose reduction achievable by omitting the unenhanced scan was 26.7 ± 9.7% (range 10-46.1; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: VUE images are feasible for pancreatic abdominal CT. A combined DE/SE dual-phase protocol permits a significant reduction in dose exposure to patients. Copyright Â
AIM: To compare pancreatic virtual unenhanced (VUE) and true unenhanced (TUE) images and to calculate the potential dose reduction by omitting the conventional unenhanced scan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-one patients with known or suspected pancreatic masses underwent contrast-enhanced computed-tomography (CT) during unenhanced and portal venous phases acquired in single-energy (SE) mode, and pancreatic parenchymal phase acquired in dual-energy (DE) mode. The image quality (IQ) and image noise (IN) of TUE and VUE images were evaluated. The effective dose of a combined DE/SE dual-phase protocol was compared with that of a theoretical standard SE triple-phase protocol. The results were tested for statistical significance using the Cohen's k, the Wilcoxon's signed rank test, and the paired t-test; p-values of less than 0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Mean TUE and VUE IQ were 1.5 ± 0.6 and 1.6 ± 0.6 (k = 0.891), with no significant difference (p > 0.05). Mean TUE and VUE IN were 12.3 ± 1.6 and 10.3 ± 1.5 HU, and resulted significantly different (p < 0.001). Mean effective doses for a combined DE/SE dual-phase protocol and SE triple-phase protocol were 8.9 ± 2.4 mSv (range 4.8-16.2 mSv) and 12.1 ± 3.1 mSv (range 6.4-21.1 mSv). The calculated mean dose reduction achievable by omitting the unenhanced scan was 26.7 ± 9.7% (range 10-46.1; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: VUE images are feasible for pancreatic abdominal CT. A combined DE/SE dual-phase protocol permits a significant reduction in dose exposure to patients. Copyright Â
Authors: Naveen M Kulkarni; Lorenzo Mannelli; Marc Zins; Priya R Bhosale; Hina Arif-Tiwari; Olga R Brook; Elizabeth M Hecht; Fay Kastrinos; Zhen Jane Wang; Erik V Soloff; Parag P Tolat; Guillermo Sangster; Jason Fleming; Eric P Tamm; Avinash R Kambadakone Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-03
Authors: Jorge Oldan; Miao He; Teresa Wu; Alvin C Silva; Jing Li; J Ross Mitchell; William M Pavlicek; Michael C Roarke; Amy K Hara Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Elizabeth George; Jeremy R Wortman; Urvi P Fulwadhva; Jennifer W Uyeda; Aaron D Sodickson Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Simon S Martin; Franziska Trapp; Julian L Wichmann; Moritz H Albrecht; Lukas Lenga; James Durden; Christian Booz; Thomas J Vogl; Tommaso D'Angelo Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Benjamin M Yeh; Paul F FitzGerald; Peter M Edic; Jack W Lambert; Robert E Colborn; Michael E Marino; Paul M Evans; Jeannette C Roberts; Zhen J Wang; Margaret J Wong; Peter J Bonitatibus Journal: Adv Drug Deliv Rev Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 15.470
Authors: Julian L Wichmann; Pawel Majenka; Martin Beeres; Wolfgang Kromen; Boris Schulz; Stefan Wesarg; Ralf W Bauer; J Matthias Kerl; Tatjana Gruber-Rouh; Renate Hammerstingl; Thomas J Vogl; Thomas Lehnert Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Wolfgang M Thaiss; Ulrike Haberland; Sascha Kaufmann; Daniel Spira; Christoph Thomas; Konstantin Nikolaou; Marius Horger; Alexander W Sauter Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 5.315