X Y Jiang1, S H Zhang2, Q Z Xie3, Z J Yin4, Q Y Liu4, M D Zhao4, X L Li4, X J Mao4. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (X.Y.J., Z.J.Y., Q.Y.L., M.D.Z., X.L.L., X.J.M.) xyjiang188@sina.com. 2. Department of Radiology (S.H.Z.), Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong, P.R. China. 3. Pediatrics (Q.Z.X.), Affiliated Hospital of Binzhou Medical University, Shandong, P.R. China. 4. From the Departments of Radiology (X.Y.J., Z.J.Y., Q.Y.L., M.D.Z., X.L.L., X.J.M.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The virtual noncontrast images generated with iodine subtraction from dual-energy CTA images are expected to replace the true noncontrast images for radiation-dose reduction. This study assessed the feasibility of virtual noncontrast images for diagnosing SAH. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-four patients with or without SAH underwent true noncontrast brain CT (the criterion standard for diagnosing SAH). Among them, 37 patients underwent an additional head dual-energy angiography, and the other patients underwent head and neck dual-energy angiography. Virtual noncontrast images were produced on a dedicated dual-energy postprocessing workstation and reconstructed in orientation and section width identical to those in true noncontrast images. The findings on the virtual noncontrast and true noncontrast images were compared at both the individual level and the lesion level. Image noise of the virtual noncontrast and true noncontrast images was also measured and compared. The volume CT dose index and dose-length product were recorded for the radiation-dose analysis. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of virtual noncontrast images at the individual level and the lesion level were 94.5%, 100%, 100%, 90.6% and 86.7%, 96.9%, 91.8%, 94.8%, respectively. The agreement in the diagnosis of SAH on true noncontrast and virtual noncontrast images reached 92.3% at the individual level and 85.1% at the lesion level. The virtual noncontrast images showed a higher image noise level. The volume CT dose index and dose-length product were obviously reduced without the true noncontrast brain CT scan. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual noncontrast images are a reliable tool for diagnosing SAH, with the advantage of reducing the radiation dose.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The virtual noncontrast images generated with iodine subtraction from dual-energy CTA images are expected to replace the true noncontrast images for radiation-dose reduction. This study assessed the feasibility of virtual noncontrast images for diagnosing SAH. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-four patients with or without SAH underwent true noncontrast brain CT (the criterion standard for diagnosing SAH). Among them, 37 patients underwent an additional head dual-energy angiography, and the other patients underwent head and neck dual-energy angiography. Virtual noncontrast images were produced on a dedicated dual-energy postprocessing workstation and reconstructed in orientation and section width identical to those in true noncontrast images. The findings on the virtual noncontrast and true noncontrast images were compared at both the individual level and the lesion level. Image noise of the virtual noncontrast and true noncontrast images was also measured and compared. The volume CT dose index and dose-length product were recorded for the radiation-dose analysis. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of virtual noncontrast images at the individual level and the lesion level were 94.5%, 100%, 100%, 90.6% and 86.7%, 96.9%, 91.8%, 94.8%, respectively. The agreement in the diagnosis of SAH on true noncontrast and virtual noncontrast images reached 92.3% at the individual level and 85.1% at the lesion level. The virtual noncontrast images showed a higher image noise level. The volume CT dose index and dose-length product were obviously reduced without the true noncontrast brain CT scan. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual noncontrast images are a reliable tool for diagnosing SAH, with the advantage of reducing the radiation dose.
Authors: Thorsten R C Johnson; Bernhard Krauss; Martin Sedlmair; Michael Grasruck; Herbert Bruder; Dominik Morhard; Christian Fink; Sabine Weckbach; Miriam Lenhard; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas Flohr; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-12-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Stephan Achenbach; Dieter Ropers; Axel Kuettner; Thomas Flohr; Bernd Ohnesorge; Herbert Bruder; Heike Theessen; Meri Karakaya; Werner G Daniel; Werner Bautz; Willi A Kalender; Katharina Anders Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2006-01-19 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Ali Farzad; Bethany Radin; Jason S Oh; Heidi M Teague; Brian D Euerle; J V Nable; Aisha T Liferidge; T Andrew Windsor; Michael D Witting Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2013-01-24 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Brian L Hoh; Arnold C Cheung; James D Rabinov; Johnny C Pryor; Bob S Carter; Christopher S Ogilvy Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Su Young Yun; Young Jin Heo; Hae Woong Jeong; Jin Wook Baek; Hye Jung Choo; Gi Won Shin; Sung Tae Kim; Young Gyun Jeong; Ji Young Lee; Hyun Seok Jung Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Maarten van den Broek; Danielle Byrne; Daniel Lyndon; Bonnie Niu; Shu Min Yu; Axel Rohr; Fabio Settecase Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2021-08-11 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: F Kauw; V Y Ding; J W Dankbaar; F van Ommen; G Zhu; D B Boothroyd; D N Wolman; L Molvin; H W A M de Jong; L J Kappelle; B K Velthuis; J J Heit; M Wintermark Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-08-11 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: D Olivia Popnoe; Chaan S Ng; Shouhao Zhou; S Cheenu Kappadath; Tinsu Pan; A Kyle Jones Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.102