| Literature DB >> 25120622 |
Yi-Shan Tsai1, Jiang-Shiuh Chen2, Chien-Kuo Wang1, Chia-Hsing Lu1, Chao-Neng Cheng2, Chin-Shun Kuo1, Yi-Sheng Liu1, Hong-Ming Tsai1.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to determine the correlation between dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) Hounsfield units (HU) and iron concentration, as well as the correlation between HU and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-derived R2* values, in phantoms of the heart and liver tissue. Phantoms were constructed containing pig heart or liver tissue and varying concentrations of iron (0.1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 mg/ml). The phantoms were then examined by DECT and MRI. Linear regression analysis was used to determine the correlations between HU and iron concentration and HU and R2* values. The HU value of DECT increased with increasing iron concentrations in the liver and heart phantoms in a linear manner. The slope of the HU value change against iron concentration revealed that ΔH80-140 provided a better discernment of iron concentration as compared with ΔH100-140. The derived R2 values were all >0.9 for the associations of DECT and MRI measurements with iron concentrations. Therefore, DECT may be used for the determination of iron concentration in the liver and heart tissue, with the results correlating with those obtained with MRI.Entities:
Keywords: Hounsfield units; dual-energy computed tomography; iron; magnetic resonance imaging; thalassemia
Year: 2014 PMID: 25120622 PMCID: PMC4113552 DOI: 10.3892/etm.2014.1813
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Exp Ther Med ISSN: 1792-0981 Impact factor: 2.447
A representation of DECT and MRI R2* measurements.
| Heart | Liver | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
| Group | Normal saline | Minced heart | Normal saline | Minced liver |
| DECT, HU | ||||
| 80 kVp | 71.20±44.15 | 71.44±44.36 | 55.63±35.93 | 56.61±35.9 |
| 140 kVp | 53.73±21.22 | 54.74±21.09 | 39.7±17.38 | 41.62±17.38 |
| ΔH80–140 | 17.67±23.36 | 16.90±23.71 | 16.11±18.88 | 15.16±18.85 |
| DECT, HU | ||||
| 100 kVp | 64.74±35.71 | 65.03±34.61 | 50.29±29.43 | 51.3±28.66 |
| 140 kVp | 53.26±20.72 | 54.44±20.67 | 40.08±17.97 | 41.74±17.41 |
| ΔH100–140 | 11.68±5.35 | 10.80±14.31 | 10.38±11.80 | 9.73±11.55 |
| MRI, msec | ||||
| R2* | 114.82±121.60 | 127.35±136.95 | 156.63±92.39 | 137.36±83.91 |
DECT and MRI R2* measurements for each of the four groups (liver and heart phantoms in normal saline and liver and heart phantoms in liver and heart, respectively) were the average values from the pooling of 34 tube readings from each corresponding phantom group. Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation. R2* = 1,000/T2*. No significant differences were observed between the normal saline and minced heart or the normal saline and liver groups. DECT, dual-energy computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; HU, Hounsfield unit.
Figure 1Scatter plots showing the predicted regression lines of DECT 80 kVp, 140 kVp and ΔH80–140 with iron concentrations in the (A) heart and (B) liver. DECT, dual-energy computed tomography.
Figure 2Scatter plots showing the predicted regression lines of DECT 100 kVp, 140 kVp and ΔH100–140 with iron concentrations in the (A) heart and (B) liver. DECT, dual-energy computed tomography.
Figure 3Scatter plots showing the predicted regression lines of DECT ΔH80–140, ΔH100–140 and R2* with iron concentrations in the (A) heart and (B) liver. DECT, dual-energy computed tomography.
Predicted regression lines and corresponding R2 values were used to identify the association between DECT and MRI measurements with iron concentrations.
| Heart | Liver | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
| Group | Predicted regression line | R2 | Predicted regression line | R2 |
| DECT, HU | ||||
| 80 kVp | y = 7.75x + 39.6 | 0.996 | y = 6.275x + 30.92 | 0.993 |
| 140 kVp | y = 3.65x + 39.76 | 0.980 | y = 3.01x + 29.27 | 0.979 |
| ΔH80–140 | y = 4.15x − 0.10 | 0.998 | y = 3.31x + 1.66 | 0.998 |
| DECT, HU | ||||
| 100 kVp | y = 6.04x + 40.27 | 0.993 | y = 4.99x + 30.81 | 0.992 |
| 140 kVp | y = 3.59x + 39.74 | 0.982 | y = 3.02x + 29.36 | 0.980 |
| ΔH100–140 | y = 2.51x + 0.53 | 0.999 | y = 2.02x + 1.45 | 0.997 |
| MRI, msec | ||||
| R2* | y = 23.07x + 32.75 | 0.926 | y = 14.04x + 79.79 | 0.913 |
Predicted regression lines are represented as y = b1x + b0 and the corresponding R2 values were derived from simple linear regression analysis. DECT, dual-energy computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; HU, Hounsfield unit.