INTRODUCTION: To investigate low-tube-voltage 80-kVp computed tomography (CT) of head and neck primary and recurrent squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) regarding objective and subjective image quality. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 65 patients (47 male, 18 female; mean age: 62.1 years) who underwent head and neck dual-energy CT (DECT) due to biopsy-proven primary (n = 50) or recurrent (n = 15) SCC. Eighty peak kilovoltage and standard blended 120-kVp images were compared. Attenuation and noise of malignancy and various soft tissue structures were measured. Tumor signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated. Subjective image quality was rated by three reviewers using 5-point grading scales regarding overall image quality, lesion delineation, image sharpness, and image noise. Radiation dose was assessed as CT dose index volume (CTDIvol). Interobserver agreement was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Mean tumor attenuation (153.8 Hounsfield unit (HU) vs. 97.1 HU), SNR (10.7 vs. 8.3), CNR (8.1 vs. 4.8), and subjective tumor delineation (score, 4.46 vs. 4.13) were significantly increased (all P < 0.001) with 80-kVp acquisition compared to standard blended 120-kVp images. Noise of all measured structures was increased in 80-kVp acquisition (P < 0.001). Overall interobserver agreement was good (ICC, 0.86; 95 % confidence intervals: 0.82-0.89). CTDIvol was reduced by 48.7 % with 80-kVp acquisition compared to standard DECT (4.85 ± 0.51 vs. 9.94 ± 0.81 mGy cm, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Head and neck CT with low-tube-voltage 80-kVp acquisition provides increased tumor delineation, SNR, and CNR for CT imaging of primary and recurrent SCC compared to standard 120-kVp acquisition with an accompanying significant reduction of radiation exposure.
INTRODUCTION: To investigate low-tube-voltage 80-kVp computed tomography (CT) of head and neck primary and recurrent squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) regarding objective and subjective image quality. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 65 patients (47 male, 18 female; mean age: 62.1 years) who underwent head and neck dual-energy CT (DECT) due to biopsy-proven primary (n = 50) or recurrent (n = 15) SCC. Eighty peak kilovoltage and standard blended 120-kVp images were compared. Attenuation and noise of malignancy and various soft tissue structures were measured. Tumor signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated. Subjective image quality was rated by three reviewers using 5-point grading scales regarding overall image quality, lesion delineation, image sharpness, and image noise. Radiation dose was assessed as CT dose index volume (CTDIvol). Interobserver agreement was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Mean tumor attenuation (153.8 Hounsfield unit (HU) vs. 97.1 HU), SNR (10.7 vs. 8.3), CNR (8.1 vs. 4.8), and subjective tumor delineation (score, 4.46 vs. 4.13) were significantly increased (all P < 0.001) with 80-kVp acquisition compared to standard blended 120-kVp images. Noise of all measured structures was increased in 80-kVp acquisition (P < 0.001). Overall interobserver agreement was good (ICC, 0.86; 95 % confidence intervals: 0.82-0.89). CTDIvol was reduced by 48.7 % with 80-kVp acquisition compared to standard DECT (4.85 ± 0.51 vs. 9.94 ± 0.81 mGy cm, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Head and neck CT with low-tube-voltage 80-kVp acquisition provides increased tumor delineation, SNR, and CNR for CT imaging of primary and recurrent SCC compared to standard 120-kVp acquisition with an accompanying significant reduction of radiation exposure.
Authors: Michael Toepker; Thomas Moritz; Bernhard Krauss; Michael Weber; Gordon Euller; Thomas Mang; Florian Wolf; Christian J Herold; Helmut Ringl Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Jenny K Hoang; Terry T Yoshizumi; Giao Nguyen; Greta Toncheva; Kingshuk Roy Choudhury; Andreia R Gafton; James D Eastwood; Carolyn Lowry; Lynne M Hurwitz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.959
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: J-E Scholtz; K Hüsers; M Kaup; M Albrecht; B Schulz; C Frellesen; B Bodelle; J Wagenblast; J M Kerl; R W Bauer; T Lehnert; T J Vogl; J L Wichmann Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2014-12-06 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Ahmed M Tawfik; A A Razek; J Matthias Kerl; N E Nour-Eldin; Ralf Bauer; Thomas J Vogl Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-10-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Victor Neuhaus; Nils Große Hokamp; Nuran Abdullayev; Volker Maus; Christoph Kabbasch; Anastasios Mpotsaris; David Maintz; Jan Borggrefe Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Doris Leithner; Julian L Wichmann; Scherwin Mahmoudi; Simon S Martin; Moritz H Albrecht; Thomas J Vogl; Jan-Erik Scholtz Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: J-E Scholtz; M Kaup; K Hüsers; M H Albrecht; B Bodelle; S C Metzger; J M Kerl; R W Bauer; T Lehnert; T J Vogl; J L Wichmann Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 3.825
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: Jan-Erik Scholtz; Julian L Wichmann; Kristina Hüsers; Moritz H Albrecht; Martin Beeres; Ralf W Bauer; Thomas J Vogl; Boris Bodelle Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Matthias Stefan May; Marco Wiesmueller; Rafael Heiss; Michael Brand; Joscha Bruegel; Michael Uder; Wolfgang Wuest Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sweet Ping Ng; Carlos E Cardenas; Hesham Elhalawani; Courtney Pollard; Baher Elgohari; Penny Fang; Mohamed Meheissen; Nandita Guha-Thakurta; Houda Bahig; Jason M Johnson; Mona Kamal; Adam S Garden; Jay P Reddy; Shirley Y Su; Renata Ferrarotto; Steven J Frank; G Brandon Gunn; Amy C Moreno; David I Rosenthal; Clifton D Fuller; Jack Phan Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-04-29
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