OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential diagnostic value of dual-energy CT (DECT) with virtual non-enhanced (VNE) and iodine-only images, and to determine the optimal mixed ratio of blended images for evaluation of pancreatic diseases. METHODS: Multiphasic DECT was performed in 44 patients with focal pancreatic disease. DECT was used during the pancreatic and hepatic venous phases, and a peak kilovoltage of 120 kVp was used for both non-contrast phases. For qualitative analysis of the CT images, two radiologists assessed three image sets (VNE, iodine-only and blended images) in order to determine the acceptability of VNE in replacing true non-enhanced (TNE) images, the added value of iodine-only images and the preferred blending ratio. For quantitative analyses, the CT numbers and image noise of the pancreatic parenchyma, lesions, aorta and psoas muscle were measured. The contrast-to-noise ratio of the lesion was calculated on the pancreatic phase images. The effective radiation dose for DECT and TNE images was calculated. Statistical comparisons were made using the Friedman test, the Wilcoxon test, the paired t-test and repeated measures of analysis of variation with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: The level of acceptance of the VNE images in replacing TNE images was 90.9%. Regarding the iodine-only images, 50% of the cases were found to have an added value. The linear-blended images with a weighting factor of 0.5 were preferred. CONCLUSIONS: DECT was able to provide high-quality VNE images that could replace TNE images and iodine-only images showing an added value. Blended images with a weighting factor of 0.5 were preferred by the reviewers.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential diagnostic value of dual-energy CT (DECT) with virtual non-enhanced (VNE) and iodine-only images, and to determine the optimal mixed ratio of blended images for evaluation of pancreatic diseases. METHODS: Multiphasic DECT was performed in 44 patients with focal pancreatic disease. DECT was used during the pancreatic and hepatic venous phases, and a peak kilovoltage of 120 kVp was used for both non-contrast phases. For qualitative analysis of the CT images, two radiologists assessed three image sets (VNE, iodine-only and blended images) in order to determine the acceptability of VNE in replacing true non-enhanced (TNE) images, the added value of iodine-only images and the preferred blending ratio. For quantitative analyses, the CT numbers and image noise of the pancreatic parenchyma, lesions, aorta and psoas muscle were measured. The contrast-to-noise ratio of the lesion was calculated on the pancreatic phase images. The effective radiation dose for DECT and TNE images was calculated. Statistical comparisons were made using the Friedman test, the Wilcoxon test, the paired t-test and repeated measures of analysis of variation with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: The level of acceptance of the VNE images in replacing TNE images was 90.9%. Regarding the iodine-only images, 50% of the cases were found to have an added value. The linear-blended images with a weighting factor of 0.5 were preferred. CONCLUSIONS: DECT was able to provide high-quality VNE images that could replace TNE images and iodine-only images showing an added value. Blended images with a weighting factor of 0.5 were preferred by the reviewers.
Authors: Thorsten R C Johnson; Konstantin Nikolaou; Bernd J Wintersperger; Alexander W Leber; Franz von Ziegler; Carsten Rist; Sonja Buhmann; Andreas Knez; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-05-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: David R Holmes; Joel G Fletcher; Anja Apel; James E Huprich; Hassan Siddiki; David M Hough; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas G Flohr; Richard Robb; Cynthia McCollough; Michael Wittmer; Christian Eusemann Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2008-11-05 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Hans Scheffel; Paul Stolzmann; Thomas Frauenfelder; Thomas Schertler; Lotus Desbiolles; Sebastian Leschka; Borut Marincek; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 6.016
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: Elizabeth M Hecht; Gaurav Khatri; Desiree Morgan; Stella Kang; Priya R Bhosale; Isaac R Francis; Namita S Gandhi; David M Hough; Chenchan Huang; Lyndon Luk; Alec Megibow; Justin M Ream; Dushyant Sahani; Vahid Yaghmai; Atif Zaheer; Ravi Kaza Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-11-13
Authors: Florencia McAllister; Maria F Montiel; Guneesh S Uberoi; Angad S Uberoi; Anirban Maitra; Manoop S Bhutani Journal: Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) Date: 2017-05
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