PURPOSE: To compare image quality on contrast-enhanced dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) during the pancreatic parenchymal phase of pancreatic masses between linearly-blended simulated 120 kVp images (routine) and advanced image-based virtual monoenergetic reconstructions at 55 keV. METHODS: This was a retrospective evaluation of 24 nonconsecutive adults found to have a focal pancreatic mass on a multiphasic abdominal dual-source DECT (12 adenocarcinoma, 5 neuroendocrine, 7 cystic tumors). For pancreatic-parenchymal phase images, subjects had routine and 55 keV images reconstructed at the time of clinical evaluation. Quantitative evaluation by contrast-to-noise ratio and qualitative evaluations of image quality by (1) direct comparison of image pairs (preference) and (2) blinded assessment of image quality measures based on Likert scores were performed. RESULTS: Mean patient weight was 205.8 ± 26.6 lbs. Mean pancreatic lesion contrast-to-noise ratio was significantly higher at 55 keV (6.8 ± 4.1) compared to the routine image series (5.8 ± 3.8; P = 0.0002). All 3 readers preferred the 55-keV images over routine blended images in 70.1% to 95.8% of cases. No significant differences were observed for subjective sharpness of the mass, visualization of internal mass structures, or image noise. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a single advanced image-based virtual monoenergetic reconstruction at 55 keV in pancreatic DECT showed improved objective image quality and reader preference compared to routine images. As this image reconstruction can be incorporated into the scan protocol, this technique should be considered for routine clinical use.
PURPOSE: To compare image quality on contrast-enhanced dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) during the pancreatic parenchymal phase of pancreatic masses between linearly-blended simulated 120 kVp images (routine) and advanced image-based virtual monoenergetic reconstructions at 55 keV. METHODS: This was a retrospective evaluation of 24 nonconsecutive adults found to have a focal pancreatic mass on a multiphasic abdominal dual-source DECT (12 adenocarcinoma, 5 neuroendocrine, 7 cystic tumors). For pancreatic-parenchymal phase images, subjects had routine and 55 keV images reconstructed at the time of clinical evaluation. Quantitative evaluation by contrast-to-noise ratio and qualitative evaluations of image quality by (1) direct comparison of image pairs (preference) and (2) blinded assessment of image quality measures based on Likert scores were performed. RESULTS: Mean patient weight was 205.8 ± 26.6 lbs. Mean pancreatic lesion contrast-to-noise ratio was significantly higher at 55 keV (6.8 ± 4.1) compared to the routine image series (5.8 ± 3.8; P = 0.0002). All 3 readers preferred the 55-keV images over routine blended images in 70.1% to 95.8% of cases. No significant differences were observed for subjective sharpness of the mass, visualization of internal mass structures, or image noise. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a single advanced image-based virtual monoenergetic reconstruction at 55 keV in pancreatic DECT showed improved objective image quality and reader preference compared to routine images. As this image reconstruction can be incorporated into the scan protocol, this technique should be considered for routine clinical use.
Authors: Naveen M Kulkarni; Lorenzo Mannelli; Marc Zins; Priya R Bhosale; Hina Arif-Tiwari; Olga R Brook; Elizabeth M Hecht; Fay Kastrinos; Zhen Jane Wang; Erik V Soloff; Parag P Tolat; Guillermo Sangster; Jason Fleming; Eric P Tamm; Avinash R Kambadakone Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-03
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: 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: Elizabeth George; Jeremy R Wortman; Urvi P Fulwadhva; Jennifer W Uyeda; Aaron D Sodickson Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: George Noid; Justin Zhu; An Tai; Nilesh Mistry; Diane Schott; Douglas Prah; Eric Paulson; Christopher Schultz; X Allen Li Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-08-28 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Rocio Garcia-Carbonero; Roberto Garcia-Figueiras; Alberto Carmona-Bayonas; Isabel Sevilla; Alex Teule; Maria Quindos; Enrique Grande; Jaume Capdevila; Javier Aller; Javier Arbizu; Paula Jimenez-Fonseca Journal: Cancer Metastasis Rev Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 9.264