Johanna Nattenmüller1, Waldemar Hosch2, Tri-Thien Nguyen3, Stephan Skornitzke4, Andreas Jöres5, Lars Grenacher6, Hans-Ulrich Kauczor7, Christof M Sommer8, Wolfram Stiller9. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (DIR), University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. johanna.nattenmueller@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (DIR), University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. waldemar.hosch@urz.uni-heidelberg.de. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (DIR), University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. tri-thien.nguyen@stud.uni-heidelberg.de. 4. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (DIR), University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. stephan.skornitzke@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 5. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (DIR), University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. andreas.joeres@gmx.de. 6. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (DIR), University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. lars.grenacher@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 7. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (DIR), University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. hu.kauczor@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 8. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (DIR), University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. christof.sommer@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 9. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (DIR), University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. wolfram.stiller@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate dual-energy CT (DECT) imaging of hypodense liver lesions in patients with hepatic steatosis, having a high incidence in the general population and among cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: One hundred and five patients with hepatic steatosis (liver parenchyma <40 HU) underwent contrast-enhanced DECT with reconstruction of pure iodine (PI), optimum contrast (OC), 80 kVp, and 120 kVp-equivalent data sets. Image noise (IN), lesion to liver signal to noise (SNR) and contrast to noise (CNR) ratios were quantitatively analysed; image quality was rated on a 5-point scale (1, excellent; 2, good; 3, fair; 4, poor; 5, non-diagnostic) by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: In 21 patients with hypodense liver lesions, IN was lowest in PI followed by 120 kVp-equivalent and OC, and highest in 80 kVp. SNR was highest in PI (1.30), followed by 120 kVp-equivalent (0.72) and 80 kVp (0.63), and lowest in OC (0.55). CNR was highest in 120 kVp-equivalent (4.95), followed by OC (4.55) and 80 kVp (4.14), and lowest in PI (3.63). The 120 kVp-equivalent series exhibited best overall qualitative image score (1.88), followed by OC (1.98), 80 kVp (3.00) and PI (3.67). CONCLUSION: In our study, the 120 kVp-equivalent series was best suited for visualization of hypodense lesions within steatotic liver parenchyma, while using DECT currently seems to offer no additional diagnostic advantage. KEY POINTS: • Hepatic steatosis has high incidence in the general population and following chemotherapy. • Hypodense liver lesions can be obscured by steatotic liver parenchyma in CT. • Low kV p -CT shows no advantage in detecting hypodense lesions in steatotic livers. • Additional DECT image information does not improve visualization of hypodense lesions in steatosis. • 120 kV p -equivalent imaging yields best quantitative and qualitative image analysis results.
PURPOSE: To evaluate dual-energy CT (DECT) imaging of hypodense liver lesions in patients with hepatic steatosis, having a high incidence in the general population and among cancerpatients receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: One hundred and five patients with hepatic steatosis (liver parenchyma <40 HU) underwent contrast-enhanced DECT with reconstruction of pure iodine (PI), optimum contrast (OC), 80 kVp, and 120 kVp-equivalent data sets. Image noise (IN), lesion to liver signal to noise (SNR) and contrast to noise (CNR) ratios were quantitatively analysed; image quality was rated on a 5-point scale (1, excellent; 2, good; 3, fair; 4, poor; 5, non-diagnostic) by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: In 21 patients with hypodense liver lesions, IN was lowest in PI followed by 120 kVp-equivalent and OC, and highest in 80 kVp. SNR was highest in PI (1.30), followed by 120 kVp-equivalent (0.72) and 80 kVp (0.63), and lowest in OC (0.55). CNR was highest in 120 kVp-equivalent (4.95), followed by OC (4.55) and 80 kVp (4.14), and lowest in PI (3.63). The 120 kVp-equivalent series exhibited best overall qualitative image score (1.88), followed by OC (1.98), 80 kVp (3.00) and PI (3.67). CONCLUSION: In our study, the 120 kVp-equivalent series was best suited for visualization of hypodense lesions within steatotic liver parenchyma, while using DECT currently seems to offer no additional diagnostic advantage. KEY POINTS: • Hepatic steatosis has high incidence in the general population and following chemotherapy. • Hypodense liver lesions can be obscured by steatotic liver parenchyma in CT. • Low kV p -CT shows no advantage in detecting hypodense lesions in steatotic livers. • Additional DECT image information does not improve visualization of hypodense lesions in steatosis. • 120 kV p -equivalent imaging yields best quantitative and qualitative image analysis results.
Authors: Christof M Sommer; Christoph B Schwarzwaelder; Wolfram Stiller; Sebastian T Schindera; Tobias Heye; Ulrike Stampfl; Stefanie Ramsauer; Nadine Bellemann; Juergen Weitz; Jan Schmidt; Lars Grenacher; Hans U Kauczor; Boris A Radeleff Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Anno Graser; Christoph R Becker; Michael Staehler; Dirk A Clevert; Michael Macari; Niko Arndt; Konstantin Nikolaou; Wieland Sommer; Christian Stief; Maximilian F Reiser; Thorsten R C Johnson Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Nathan S Artz; Catherine D G Hines; Stephen T Brunner; Rashmi M Agni; Jens-Peter Kühn; Alejandro Roldan-Alzate; Guang-Hong Chen; Scott B Reeder Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Martin Petersilka; Herbert Bruder; Bernhard Krauss; Karl Stierstorfer; Thomas G Flohr Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2008-10-07 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Julian L Wichmann; Andrew D Hardie; U Joseph Schoepf; Lloyd M Felmly; Jonathan D Perry; Akos Varga-Szemes; Stefanie Mangold; Damiano Caruso; Christian Canstein; Thomas J Vogl; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-05-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Tim Finkenstaedt; Andrei Manoliou; Martin Toniolo; Kai Higashigaito; Gustav Andreisek; Roman Guggenberger; Beat Michel; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 5.315