J-E Scholtz1, K Hüsers2, M Kaup2, M Albrecht2, B Schulz2, C Frellesen2, B Bodelle2, J Wagenblast3, J M Kerl2, R W Bauer2, T Lehnert2, T J Vogl2, J L Wichmann2. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. Electronic address: janerikscholtz@gmail.com. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. 3. Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Abstract
AIM: To compare non-linear and linear image-blending post-processing techniques in dual-energy CT (DECT) of primary head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) regarding subjective and objective image quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Head and neck DECT studies from 69 patients (48 male, 21 female; mean age 62.3 years) were retrospectively evaluated. All tumour lesions were histologically confirmed SCC. Linearly blended 80/140 kVp images series with varying weighting factors of 0.3 (M_0.3), 0.6 and 0.8 were compared with non-linearly blended images. Attenuation of tumour lesion, various soft-tissue structures, the internal jugular vein, and image noise were measured, tumour signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated. Overall image quality, delineation of tumour lesion, image sharpness, and noise level were rated individually by three radiologists using five-point Likert scales. Interobserver agreement was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Enhancement of tumour lesions (non-linear, 137.5 ± 20.1 HU; M_0.3, 92.7 ± 14.4 HU; M_0.6, 110 ± 15.4 HU; M_0.8, 123 ± 18.2 HU), CNR (non-linear, 12 ± 8; M_0.3, 4 ± 4.7; M_0.6, 7.5 ± 5.5; M_0.8, 8 ± 5.5), subjective overall image quality and tumour delineation were significantly increased (all p < 0.001) with the non-linear blending technique compared to all investigated linear blending weighting factors. Overall interobserver agreement was substantial (ICC 0.70; 95% CI: 0.66-0.73). CONCLUSION: Post-processing of DECT using a non-linear blending technique provides improved objective and subjective image quality of head and neck SCC compared to linearly blended images series.
AIM: To compare non-linear and linear image-blending post-processing techniques in dual-energy CT (DECT) of primary head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) regarding subjective and objective image quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Head and neck DECT studies from 69 patients (48 male, 21 female; mean age 62.3 years) were retrospectively evaluated. All tumour lesions were histologically confirmed SCC. Linearly blended 80/140 kVp images series with varying weighting factors of 0.3 (M_0.3), 0.6 and 0.8 were compared with non-linearly blended images. Attenuation of tumour lesion, various soft-tissue structures, the internal jugular vein, and image noise were measured, tumour signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated. Overall image quality, delineation of tumour lesion, image sharpness, and noise level were rated individually by three radiologists using five-point Likert scales. Interobserver agreement was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Enhancement of tumour lesions (non-linear, 137.5 ± 20.1 HU; M_0.3, 92.7 ± 14.4 HU; M_0.6, 110 ± 15.4 HU; M_0.8, 123 ± 18.2 HU), CNR (non-linear, 12 ± 8; M_0.3, 4 ± 4.7; M_0.6, 7.5 ± 5.5; M_0.8, 8 ± 5.5), subjective overall image quality and tumour delineation were significantly increased (all p < 0.001) with the non-linear blending technique compared to all investigated linear blending weighting factors. Overall interobserver agreement was substantial (ICC 0.70; 95% CI: 0.66-0.73). CONCLUSION: Post-processing of DECT using a non-linear blending technique provides improved objective and subjective image quality of head and neck SCC compared to linearly blended images series.
Authors: Tommaso D'Angelo; Giuseppe Cicero; Silvio Mazziotti; Giorgio Ascenti; Moritz H Albrecht; Simon S Martin; Ahmed E Othman; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-04-09 Impact factor: 3.039
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: Elise D Roele; Veronique C M L Timmer; Lauretta A A Vaassen; Anna M J L van Kroonenburgh; A A Postma Journal: Curr Radiol Rep Date: 2017-03-29