OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether dual-energy computed tomography (DECT)-derived iodine content and iodine overlay could differentiate between normal, inflammatory and metastatic squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) cervical lymph nodes. METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board. Sixteen patients with normal lymph nodes, 20 patients with enlarged nodes draining deep cervical inflammations and 23 patients with pathologically proved metastatic SCC nodes who underwent contrast enhanced DECT were retrospectively identified. Iodine content and overlay of 36 normal, 43 inflammatory and 52 metastatic lymph nodes were calculated using circular regions of interest and compared among the three groups. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the sensitivity and specificity of iodine content and overlay for diagnosis of metastatic nodes. RESULTS: Iodine content (mg/ml) was significantly lower for metastatic lymph nodes (2.34 ± 0.45) than for normal (2.86 ± 0.37) and inflammatory (3.53 ± 0.56) lymph nodes, P < 0.0001. Iodine overlay (HU) was also significantly lower for metastatic lymph nodes (47 ± 11.6) than normal (57.4 ± 8.2) and inflammatory nodes (69.3 ± 11.5), P < 0.0001. The areas under the ROC curve for iodine content and iodine overlay were 0.923 and 0.896. CONCLUSIONS: DECT-derived iodine content and overlay differ significantly among normal, inflammatory and metastatic SCC cervical lymph nodes. KEY POINTS: • Derived iodine content can be calculated from contrast-enhanced dual-energy CT. • Derived iodine content and iodine overlay could help characterise cervical lymph nodes. • Iodine parameters were significantly lower in metastatic lymph nodes than normal/inflammatory lymph nodes. • Iodine content appears more sensitive than iodine overlay for lymph node characterisation.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether dual-energy computed tomography (DECT)-derived iodine content and iodine overlay could differentiate between normal, inflammatory and metastatic squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) cervical lymph nodes. METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board. Sixteen patients with normal lymph nodes, 20 patients with enlarged nodes draining deep cervical inflammations and 23 patients with pathologically proved metastatic SCC nodes who underwent contrast enhanced DECT were retrospectively identified. Iodine content and overlay of 36 normal, 43 inflammatory and 52 metastatic lymph nodes were calculated using circular regions of interest and compared among the three groups. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the sensitivity and specificity of iodine content and overlay for diagnosis of metastatic nodes. RESULTS:Iodine content (mg/ml) was significantly lower for metastatic lymph nodes (2.34 ± 0.45) than for normal (2.86 ± 0.37) and inflammatory (3.53 ± 0.56) lymph nodes, P < 0.0001. Iodine overlay (HU) was also significantly lower for metastatic lymph nodes (47 ± 11.6) than normal (57.4 ± 8.2) and inflammatory nodes (69.3 ± 11.5), P < 0.0001. The areas under the ROC curve for iodine content and iodine overlay were 0.923 and 0.896. CONCLUSIONS: DECT-derived iodine content and overlay differ significantly among normal, inflammatory and metastatic SCC cervical lymph nodes. KEY POINTS: • Derived iodine content can be calculated from contrast-enhanced dual-energy CT. • Derived iodine content and iodine overlay could help characterise cervical lymph nodes. • Iodine parameters were significantly lower in metastatic lymph nodes than normal/inflammatory lymph nodes. • Iodine content appears more sensitive than iodine overlay for lymph node characterisation.
Authors: Michael Toepker; Thomas Moritz; Bernhard Krauss; Michael Weber; Gordon Euller; Thomas Mang; Florian Wolf; Christian J Herold; Helmut Ringl Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Sascha Kaufmann; Alexander Sauter; Daniel Spira; Sergios Gatidis; Dominik Ketelsen; Martin Heuschmid; Claus D Claussen; Christoph Thomas Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Hersh Chandarana; Alec J Megibow; Benjamin A Cohen; Ramya Srinivasan; Danny Kim; Christianne Leidecker; Michael Macari Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Nancy J Fischbein; Susan M Noworolski; Roland G Henry; Michael J Kaplan; William P Dillon; Sarah J Nelson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Vincent Vandecaveye; Frederik De Keyzer; Vincent Vander Poorten; Piet Dirix; Eric Verbeken; Sandra Nuyts; Robert Hermans Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-02-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Giuseppe Cicero; Giorgio Ascenti; Moritz H Albrecht; Alfredo Blandino; Marco Cavallaro; Tommaso D'Angelo; Maria Ludovica Carerj; Thomas J Vogl; Silvio Mazziotti Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Jan-Erik Scholtz; Moritz Kaup; Johannes Kraft; Eva-Maria Nöske; Friedrich Scheerer; Boris Schulz; Iris Burck; Jens Wagenblast; J Matthias Kerl; Ralf W Bauer; Thomas Lehnert; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2015-03-26 Impact factor: 2.804
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: Jan Baxa; Alena Vondráková; Táňa Matoušková; Olga Růžičková; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas Flohr; Martin Sedlmair; Jiří Ferda Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 5.315