OBJECTIVES: To define optimal keV settings for advanced monoenergetic (Mono+) dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). METHODS: DECT data of 44 patients (34 men, mean age 55.5 ± 16.0 years) with histopathologically confirmed SCC were reconstructed as 40, 55, 70 keV Mono + and M_0.3 (30 % 80 kV) linearly blended series. Attenuation of tumour, sternocleidomastoid muscle, internal jugular vein, submandibular gland, and noise were measured. Three radiologists with >3 years of experience subjectively assessed image quality, lesion delineation, image sharpness, and noise. RESULTS: The highest lesion attenuation was shown for 40 keV series (248.1 ± 94.1 HU), followed by 55 keV (150.2 ± 55.5 HU; P = 0.001). Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) at 40 keV (19.09 ± 13.84) was significantly superior to all other reconstructions (55 keV, 10.25 ± 9.11; 70 keV, 7.68 ± 6.31; M_0.3, 5.49 ± 3.28; all P < 0.005). Subjective image quality was highest for 55 keV images (4.53; κ = 0.38, P = 0.003), followed by 40 keV (4.14; κ = 0.43, P < 0.001) and 70 keV reconstructions (4.06; κ = 0.32, P = 0.005), all superior (P < 0.004) to linear blending M_0.3 (3.81; κ = 0.280, P = 0.056). CONCLUSIONS: Mono + DECT at low keV levels significantly improves CNR and subjective image quality in patients with head and neck SCC, as tumour CNR peaks at 40 keV, and 55 keV images are preferred by observers. KEY POINTS: • Mono + DECT combines increased contrast with reduced image noise, unlike linearly blended images. • Mono + DECT imaging allows for superior CNR and subjective image quality. • Head and neck tumour contrast-to-noise ratio peaks at 40 keV. • 55 keV images are preferred over all other series by observers.
OBJECTIVES: To define optimal keV settings for advanced monoenergetic (Mono+) dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). METHODS: DECT data of 44 patients (34 men, mean age 55.5 ± 16.0 years) with histopathologically confirmed SCC were reconstructed as 40, 55, 70 keV Mono + and M_0.3 (30 % 80 kV) linearly blended series. Attenuation of tumour, sternocleidomastoid muscle, internal jugular vein, submandibular gland, and noise were measured. Three radiologists with >3 years of experience subjectively assessed image quality, lesion delineation, image sharpness, and noise. RESULTS: The highest lesion attenuation was shown for 40 keV series (248.1 ± 94.1 HU), followed by 55 keV (150.2 ± 55.5 HU; P = 0.001). Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) at 40 keV (19.09 ± 13.84) was significantly superior to all other reconstructions (55 keV, 10.25 ± 9.11; 70 keV, 7.68 ± 6.31; M_0.3, 5.49 ± 3.28; all P < 0.005). Subjective image quality was highest for 55 keV images (4.53; κ = 0.38, P = 0.003), followed by 40 keV (4.14; κ = 0.43, P < 0.001) and 70 keV reconstructions (4.06; κ = 0.32, P = 0.005), all superior (P < 0.004) to linear blending M_0.3 (3.81; κ = 0.280, P = 0.056). CONCLUSIONS:Mono + DECT at low keV levels significantly improves CNR and subjective image quality in patients with head and neck SCC, as tumour CNR peaks at 40 keV, and 55 keV images are preferred by observers. KEY POINTS: • Mono + DECT combines increased contrast with reduced image noise, unlike linearly blended images. • Mono + DECT imaging allows for superior CNR and subjective image quality. • Head and neck tumour contrast-to-noise ratio peaks at 40 keV. • 55 keV images are preferred over all other series by observers.
Authors: Carlo Nicola De Cecco; Anna Darnell; Marco Rengo; Giuseppe Muscogiuri; Davide Bellini; Carmen Ayuso; Andrea Laghi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Paul Stolzmann; Sebastian Winklhofer; Nicole Schwendener; Hatem Alkadhi; Michael J Thali; Thomas D Ruder Journal: Forensic Sci Med Pathol Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 2.007
Authors: Fabian Bamberg; Alexander Dierks; Konstantin Nikolaou; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker; Thorsten R C Johnson Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Julian L Wichmann; Eva-Maria Nöske; Johannes Kraft; Iris Burck; Jens Wagenblast; Anne Eckardt; Claudia Frellesen; J Matthias Kerl; Ralf W Bauer; Boris Bodelle; Thomas Lehnert; Thomas J Vogl; Boris Schulz Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: David Schneider; Paul Apfaltrer; Sonja Sudarski; John W Nance; Holger Haubenreisser; Christian Fink; Stefan O Schoenberg; Thomas Henzler Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Matthew S Davenport; Shokoufeh Khalatbari; Richard H Cohan; Jonathan R Dillman; James D Myles; James H Ellis Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-04-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Martin Beeres; Jesko Trommer; Claudia Frellesen; Nour-Eldin A Nour-Eldin; Jan E Scholtz; Eva Herrmann; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-08-02 Impact factor: 2.357
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: Jakob Weiss; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Malte Bongers; Christoph Schabel; Stefanie Mangold; Konstantin Nikolaou; Fabian Bamberg; Ahmed E Othman Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2017-01-09 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Carlo N De Cecco; Damiano Caruso; U Joseph Schoepf; Domenico De Santis; Giuseppe Muscogiuri; Moritz H Albrecht; Felix G Meinel; Julian L Wichmann; Philip F Burchett; Akos Varga-Szemes; Douglas H Sheafor; Andrew D Hardie Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-02-19 Impact factor: 5.315
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: H Kuno; K Sakamaki; S Fujii; K Sekiya; K Otani; R Hayashi; T Yamanaka; O Sakai; M Kusumoto Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 3.825