R Forghani1, M Levental2, R Gupta3, S Lam2, N Dadfar4, H D Curtin4. 1. From the Department of Radiology (R.F., M.L., S.L.), Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada rforghani@jg.mcgill.ca. 2. From the Department of Radiology (R.F., M.L., S.L.), Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 3. Department of Radiology (R.G.), Massachusetts General Hospital. 4. Department of Radiology (N.D., H.D.C.), Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The attenuation of normal nonossified thyroid cartilage can be similar to that of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma on CT. We compared dual-energy CT spectral Hounsfield unit attenuation characteristics of nonossified thyroid cartilage with that of squamous cell carcinoma to determine the optimal virtual monochromatic image reconstruction energy levels for distinguishing tumor from normal nonossified thyroid cartilage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dual-energy CT scans from 30 patients with histopathology-proved squamous cell carcinoma at different primary sites (laryngeal and nonlaryngeal) and 10 healthy patients were evaluated. Patients were scanned with a 64-section single-source scanner with fast-kilovolt (peak) switching, and scans were reconstructed at different virtual monochromatic energy levels ranging from 40 to 140 keV. Spectral attenuation curves of tumor and nonossified thyroid cartilage were quantitatively evaluated and compared. Any part of the tumor invading the cartilage, when present, was excluded from ROI analysis to avoid cross-contamination from areas where there could be a mixture of cartilage and invading tumor. RESULTS: Normal nonossified thyroid cartilage had a characteristic, predictable spectral attenuation curve that was different from that of tumors. The greatest difference in attenuation of nonossified cartilage compared with tumor was on virtual monochromatic images of ≥95 keV (P < .0001), with sharp contrast between the relatively high attenuation of nonossified cartilage compared with that of tumor. CONCLUSIONS: Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma has significantly different attenuation on virtual monochromatic images of ≥95 keV, compared with nonossified thyroid cartilage.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The attenuation of normal nonossified thyroid cartilage can be similar to that of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma on CT. We compared dual-energy CT spectral Hounsfield unit attenuation characteristics of nonossified thyroid cartilage with that of squamous cell carcinoma to determine the optimal virtual monochromatic image reconstruction energy levels for distinguishing tumor from normal nonossified thyroid cartilage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dual-energy CT scans from 30 patients with histopathology-proved squamous cell carcinoma at different primary sites (laryngeal and nonlaryngeal) and 10 healthy patients were evaluated. Patients were scanned with a 64-section single-source scanner with fast-kilovolt (peak) switching, and scans were reconstructed at different virtual monochromatic energy levels ranging from 40 to 140 keV. Spectral attenuation curves of tumor and nonossified thyroid cartilage were quantitatively evaluated and compared. Any part of the tumor invading the cartilage, when present, was excluded from ROI analysis to avoid cross-contamination from areas where there could be a mixture of cartilage and invading tumor. RESULTS: Normal nonossified thyroid cartilage had a characteristic, predictable spectral attenuation curve that was different from that of tumors. The greatest difference in attenuation of nonossified cartilage compared with tumor was on virtual monochromatic images of ≥95 keV (P < .0001), with sharp contrast between the relatively high attenuation of nonossified cartilage compared with that of tumor. CONCLUSIONS: Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma has significantly different attenuation on virtual monochromatic images of ≥95 keV, compared with nonossified thyroid cartilage.
Authors: Ashok Srinivasan; Ellen Hoeffner; Mohannad Ibrahim; Gaurang V Shah; Frank LaMarca; Suresh K Mukherji Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-10 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: Jonathan J Beitler; Susan Muller; William J Grist; Amanda Corey; Adam M Klein; Michael M Johns; Charles L Perkins; Lawrence W Davis; Unni Udayasanker; Jerome C Landry; Dong M Shin; Patricia A Hudgins Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-05 Impact factor: 44.544
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: 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
Authors: Michael Roskies; Xiaoyang Liu; Michael P Hier; Richard J Payne; Alex Mlynarek; Veronique Forest; Mark Levental; Reza Forghani Journal: J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2015-10-31
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
Authors: Alexandra M Foust; Rukya M Ali; Xuan V Nguyen; Amit Agrawal; Luciano M Prevedello; Eric C Bourekas; Daniel J Boulter Journal: Tomography Date: 2018-06