Michael Toepker1, Christian Czerny2, Helmut Ringl3, Julia Fruehwald-Pallamar4, Florian Wolf5, Michael Weber6, Oliver Ploder7, Clemens Klug8. 1. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, University Hospital of Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: michael.toepker@meduniwien.ac.at. 2. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, University Hospital of Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: christian.czerny@meduniwien.ac.at. 3. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, University Hospital of Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: helmit.ringl@meduniwien.ac.at. 4. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, University Hospital of Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: julia.fruehwald-pallamar@meduniwien.ac.at. 5. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, University Hospital of Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: florian.wolf@meduniwien.ac.at. 6. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, University Hospital of Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: michael.weber@meduniwien.ac.at. 7. University Clinic of Craniomaxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Austria; Department for Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Feldkirch Hospital, Feldkirch, Austria. Electronic address: oliver.ploder@lkhf.at. 8. University Clinic of Craniomaxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: clemens.klug@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim was to investigate the image quality of dual-energy computed-tomography (DECT) compared to single-energy images at 80 kV and 140 kV in oral tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients underwent a contrast-enhanced DECT scan on a definition flash-CT. Four reconstructions (80 kV, 140 kV, mixed (M), and optimum-contrast (OC)) were assessed by four blinded readers for subjective image quality (10-point scale/10=best). For objective quality assessment, linear attenuation measurements (line density profiles (LDP)) were positioned at the tumor margin, and the difference between minimum and maximum was calculated. Signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) were measured in the tongue. RESULTS: The mean image quality for all readers was 5.1±0.3, 8.4±0.3, 8.1±0.2, and 8.3±0.2 for the 140 kV, 80 kV, M, and OC, respectively (P<001 between 140 kV and all others). The mean difference between the minimum and maximum within the LDP was 139.4±59.0, 65.7±29.5, 105.1±46.5, and 118.7±59.4 for the 80 kV, 140 kV, M, and OC, respectively (P<001). The SNR for the tongue was 3.8±2.1, 3.8±2.1, 4.2±2.4, and 4.1±2.3 for the 80 kV, 140 kV, M, and OC, respectively. DISCUSSION: DECT of oral tumors offers high image quality, with subjectively rated image quality and attenuation contrast at the tumor margin similar to that of 80 kV; DECT, however, provides a significantly higher SNR compared to 80 kV.
OBJECTIVES: The aim was to investigate the image quality of dual-energy computed-tomography (DECT) compared to single-energy images at 80 kV and 140 kV in oral tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients underwent a contrast-enhanced DECT scan on a definition flash-CT. Four reconstructions (80 kV, 140 kV, mixed (M), and optimum-contrast (OC)) were assessed by four blinded readers for subjective image quality (10-point scale/10=best). For objective quality assessment, linear attenuation measurements (line density profiles (LDP)) were positioned at the tumor margin, and the difference between minimum and maximum was calculated. Signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) were measured in the tongue. RESULTS: The mean image quality for all readers was 5.1±0.3, 8.4±0.3, 8.1±0.2, and 8.3±0.2 for the 140 kV, 80 kV, M, and OC, respectively (P<001 between 140 kV and all others). The mean difference between the minimum and maximum within the LDP was 139.4±59.0, 65.7±29.5, 105.1±46.5, and 118.7±59.4 for the 80 kV, 140 kV, M, and OC, respectively (P<001). The SNR for the tongue was 3.8±2.1, 3.8±2.1, 4.2±2.4, and 4.1±2.3 for the 80 kV, 140 kV, M, and OC, respectively. DISCUSSION: DECT of oral tumors offers high image quality, with subjectively rated image quality and attenuation contrast at the tumor margin similar to that of 80 kV; DECT, however, provides a significantly higher SNR compared to 80 kV.
Authors: J L Wichmann; J Kraft; E-M Nöske; B Bodelle; I Burck; J-E Scholtz; C Frellesen; J Wagenblast; J M Kerl; R W Bauer; T Lehnert; T J Vogl; B Schulz Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Moritz H Albrecht; Jan-Erik Scholtz; Johannes Kraft; Ralf W Bauer; Moritz Kaup; Patricia Dewes; Andreas M Bucher; Iris Burck; Jens Wagenblast; Thomas Lehnert; J Matthias Kerl; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-02-14 Impact factor: 5.315
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: Matthias Stefan May; Marco Wiesmueller; Rafael Heiss; Michael Brand; Joscha Bruegel; Michael Uder; Wolfgang Wuest Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Mareen Kraus; Jakob Weiss; Nadja Selo; Thomas Flohr; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Fabian Bamberg; Konstantin Nikolaou; Ahmed E Othman Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Friderike K Longarino; Antonia Kowalewski; Thomas Tessonnier; Stewart Mein; Benjamin Ackermann; Jürgen Debus; Andrea Mairani; Wolfram Stiller Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 5.738