OBJECTIVES: To compare quantitative image quality parameters in abdominal dual-energy computed tomography angiography (DE-CTA) using an advanced image-based (Mono+) reconstruction algorithm for virtual monoenergetic imaging and standard DE-CTA. METHODS: Fifty-five patients (36 men; mean age, 64.2 ± 12.7 years) who underwent abdominal DE-CTA were retrospectively included. Mono + images were reconstructed at 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100 keV levels and as standard linearly blended M_0.6 images (60 % 100 kV, 40 % 140 kV). The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the common hepatic (CHA), splenic (SA), superior mesenteric (SMA) and left renal arteries (LRA) were objectively measured. RESULTS: Mono+ DE-CTA series showed a statistically superior CNR for 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80 keV (P < 0.031) compared to M_0.6 images for all investigated arteries except SMA at 80 keV (P = 0.08). CNR at 40 keV revealed a mean relative increase of 287.7 % compared to linearly blended images among all assessed arteries (P < 0.001). SNR of Mono+ images was consistently significantly higher at 40, 50, 60 and 70 keV compared to M_0.6 for CHA and SA (P < 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to linearly blended images, Mono+ reconstructions at low keV levels of abdominal DE-CTA datasets significantly improve quantitative image quality. KEY POINTS: • Mono+ combines increased attenuation with reduced image noise compared to standard DE-CTA. • Mono+ shows superior contrast-to-noise ratios at low keV compared to linearly-blended images. • Contrast-to-noise ratio in monoenergetic DE-CTA peaks at 40 keV. • Mono+ reconstructions significantly improve quantitative image quality at low keV levels.
OBJECTIVES: To compare quantitative image quality parameters in abdominal dual-energy computed tomography angiography (DE-CTA) using an advanced image-based (Mono+) reconstruction algorithm for virtual monoenergetic imaging and standard DE-CTA. METHODS: Fifty-five patients (36 men; mean age, 64.2 ± 12.7 years) who underwent abdominal DE-CTA were retrospectively included. Mono + images were reconstructed at 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100 keV levels and as standard linearly blended M_0.6 images (60 % 100 kV, 40 % 140 kV). The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the common hepatic (CHA), splenic (SA), superior mesenteric (SMA) and left renal arteries (LRA) were objectively measured. RESULTS:Mono+ DE-CTA series showed a statistically superior CNR for 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80 keV (P < 0.031) compared to M_0.6 images for all investigated arteries except SMA at 80 keV (P = 0.08). CNR at 40 keV revealed a mean relative increase of 287.7 % compared to linearly blended images among all assessed arteries (P < 0.001). SNR of Mono+ images was consistently significantly higher at 40, 50, 60 and 70 keV compared to M_0.6 for CHA and SA (P < 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to linearly blended images, Mono+ reconstructions at low keV levels of abdominal DE-CTA datasets significantly improve quantitative image quality. KEY POINTS: • Mono+ combines increased attenuation with reduced image noise compared to standard DE-CTA. • Mono+ shows superior contrast-to-noise ratios at low keV compared to linearly-blended images. • Contrast-to-noise ratio in monoenergetic DE-CTA peaks at 40 keV. • Mono+ reconstructions significantly improve quantitative image quality at low keV levels.
Authors: Katherine E Maturen; Ravi K Kaza; Peter S Liu; Leslie E Quint; Shokoufeh H Khalatbari; Joel F Platt Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
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: Changsheng Zhou; Yan E Zhao; Song Luo; Hongyuan Shi; Lin Li; Ling Zheng; Long Jiang Zhang; Guangming Lu Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Felix G Meinel; Christian Canstein; U Joseph Schoepf; Martin Sedlmaier; Bernhard Schmidt; Brett S Harris; Thomas G Flohr; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Zsolt Szucs-Farkas; Francis R Verdun; Gabriel von Allmen; Roberto L Mini; Peter Vock Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2008-06 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: Sonja Sudarski; Paul Apfaltrer; John W Nance; David Schneider; Mathias Meyer; Stefan O Schoenberg; Christian Fink; Thomas Henzler Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-06-10 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: David Schneider; Paul Apfaltrer; Sonja Sudarski; John W Nance; Holger Haubenreisser; Christian Fink; Stefan O Schoenberg; Thomas Henzler Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Domenico De Santis; Carlo N De Cecco; U Joseph Schoepf; John W Nance; Ricardo T Yamada; Brooke A Thomas; Katharina Otani; Brian E Jacobs; D Alan Turner; Julian L Wichmann; Marwen Eid; Akos Varga-Szemes; Damiano Caruso; Katharine L Grant; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas J Vogl; Andrea Laghi; Moritz H Albrecht Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-02-25 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: Derek S Tsang; Thomas E Merchant; Sophie E Merchant; Hanna Smith; Yoad Yagil; Chia-Ho Hua Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Jakob Weiss; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Malte Bongers; Christoph Schabel; Stefanie Mangold; Konstantin Nikolaou; Fabian Bamberg; Ahmed E Othman Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2017-01-09 Impact factor: 3.469
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