S Lam1, R Gupta2, M Levental1, E Yu3, H D Curtin4, R Forghani5. 1. From the Department of Radiology (S.L., M.L., R.F.), Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 2. Department of Radiology (R.G.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Joint Department of Medical Imaging (E.Y.), Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Radiology (H.D.C.), Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. From the Department of Radiology (S.L., M.L., R.F.), Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada rforghani@jgh.mcgill.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dual-energy CT is not used routinely for evaluation of the head and neck, and there is no consensus on the optimal virtual monochromatic image energies for evaluating normal tissues or head and neck cancer. We performed a quantitative evaluation to determine the optimal virtual monochromatic images for visualization of normal tissues, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, and lymphadenopathy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dual-energy CT scans from 10 healthy patients and 30 patients with squamous cell carcinoma were evaluated at different virtual monochromatic energy levels ranging from 40 to 140 keV. The signal-to-noise ratios of muscles at 6 different levels, glands (parotid, sublingual, submandibular, and thyroid), 30 tumors, and 17 metastatic lymph nodes were determined as measures of optimal image quality. Lesion attenuation and contrast-to-noise ratios (compared with those of muscle) were evaluated to assess lesion conspicuity. RESULTS: The optimal signal-to-noise ratio for all the tissues was at 65 keV (P < .0001). However, tumor attenuation (P < .0001), attenuation difference between tumor and muscles (P = .03), and lesion contrast-to-noise ratios (P < .0001) were highest at 40 keV. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal image signal-to-noise ratio is at 65 keV, but tumor conspicuity compared with that of muscle is greatest at 40 keV. Optimal evaluation of the neck may be best achieved by a multiparametric approach, with 65-keV virtual monochromatic images providing the best overall image quality and targeted use of 40-keV virtual monochromatic images for tumor evaluation.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dual-energy CT is not used routinely for evaluation of the head and neck, and there is no consensus on the optimal virtual monochromatic image energies for evaluating normal tissues or head and neck cancer. We performed a quantitative evaluation to determine the optimal virtual monochromatic images for visualization of normal tissues, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, and lymphadenopathy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dual-energy CT scans from 10 healthy patients and 30 patients with squamous cell carcinoma were evaluated at different virtual monochromatic energy levels ranging from 40 to 140 keV. The signal-to-noise ratios of muscles at 6 different levels, glands (parotid, sublingual, submandibular, and thyroid), 30 tumors, and 17 metastatic lymph nodes were determined as measures of optimal image quality. Lesion attenuation and contrast-to-noise ratios (compared with those of muscle) were evaluated to assess lesion conspicuity. RESULTS: The optimal signal-to-noise ratio for all the tissues was at 65 keV (P < .0001). However, tumor attenuation (P < .0001), attenuation difference between tumor and muscles (P = .03), and lesion contrast-to-noise ratios (P < .0001) were highest at 40 keV. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal image signal-to-noise ratio is at 65 keV, but tumor conspicuity compared with that of muscle is greatest at 40 keV. Optimal evaluation of the neck may be best achieved by a multiparametric approach, with 65-keV virtual monochromatic images providing the best overall image quality and targeted use of 40-keV virtual monochromatic images for tumor evaluation.
Authors: Michael Toepker; Christian Czerny; Helmut Ringl; Julia Fruehwald-Pallamar; Florian Wolf; Michael Weber; Oliver Ploder; Clemens Klug Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2013-12-25 Impact factor: 5.337
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: Thomas J Vogl; Boris Schulz; Ralf W Bauer; Timo Stöver; Robert Sader; Ahmed M Tawfik 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: Ahmed M Tawfik; J Matthias Kerl; Ralf W Bauer; Nour-Eldin Nour-Eldin; Nagy N N Naguib; Thomas J Vogl; Martin G Mack Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 6.016
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: 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: 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: Fabian K Lohöfer; Georgios A Kaissis; Frances L Köster; Sebastian Ziegelmayer; Ingo Einspieler; Carlos Gerngross; Michael Rasper; Peter B Noel; Steffen Koerdt; Andreas Fichter; Ernst J Rummeny; Rickmer F Braren Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-05-28 Impact factor: 5.315
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: 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: Hao Gong; Jeffrey F Marsh; Karen N D'Souza; Nathan R Huber; Kishore Rajendran; Joel G Fletcher; Cynthia H McCollough; Shuai Leng Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2021-04-19