Achille Mileto1, Keitaro Sofue2,3, Daniele Marin2. 1. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808 Erwin Rd, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. achille.mileto@duke.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808 Erwin Rd, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Kobe University School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Many fortuitously detected renal lesions are incompletely characterised at traditional MDCT imaging, thus posing daily challenges to radiologists and referring physicians. There is burgeoning evidence that dual-energy MDCT and multi-energy applications provide an added value over traditional MDCT imaging in renal lesion characterisation and throughput. This special report gives a vendor-neutral outlook on technical essentials, recommended protocols, high-yield clinical opportunities and reviews radiation dose aspects of dual-energy MDCT imaging and multi-energy applications in renal lesions. In addition to a guide on interpretative traps and emerging problems, we provide an update on new, potential imaging horizons. CONCLUSION: Dual-energy MDCT and multi-energy applications can facilitate the imaging interpretation and throughput of renal lesions. Conjointly with capitalisation on the benefits, familiarity with dual- and multi-energy data sets as well as continuous scrutiny of interpretative traps can be the keys to the successful implementation and enhanced clinical acceptance of this powerful technique in the imaging community. Continuous advances in hardware and computer interfaces are expected to pave the way for the further expansion of the application spectrum. KEY POINTS: • Optimal protocols must be adopted for leveraging dual-energy benefits in renal imaging. • Virtual monochromatic imaging can overcome renal cyst pseudoenhancement. • Iodine maps help to interpret renal lesions incompletely characterised at traditional MDCT. • Interpretative traps need to be weighed-up in dual-energy renal lesions imaging. • Technical advances are expanding the dual-energy applications spectrum for renal lesions imaging.
OBJECTIVE: Many fortuitously detected renal lesions are incompletely characterised at traditional MDCT imaging, thus posing daily challenges to radiologists and referring physicians. There is burgeoning evidence that dual-energy MDCT and multi-energy applications provide an added value over traditional MDCT imaging in renal lesion characterisation and throughput. This special report gives a vendor-neutral outlook on technical essentials, recommended protocols, high-yield clinical opportunities and reviews radiation dose aspects of dual-energy MDCT imaging and multi-energy applications in renal lesions. In addition to a guide on interpretative traps and emerging problems, we provide an update on new, potential imaging horizons. CONCLUSION: Dual-energy MDCT and multi-energy applications can facilitate the imaging interpretation and throughput of renal lesions. Conjointly with capitalisation on the benefits, familiarity with dual- and multi-energy data sets as well as continuous scrutiny of interpretative traps can be the keys to the successful implementation and enhanced clinical acceptance of this powerful technique in the imaging community. Continuous advances in hardware and computer interfaces are expected to pave the way for the further expansion of the application spectrum. KEY POINTS: • Optimal protocols must be adopted for leveraging dual-energy benefits in renal imaging. • Virtual monochromatic imaging can overcome renal cyst pseudoenhancement. • Iodine maps help to interpret renal lesions incompletely characterised at traditional MDCT. • Interpretative traps need to be weighed-up in dual-energy renal lesions imaging. • Technical advances are expanding the dual-energy applications spectrum for renal lesions imaging.
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: Christoph A Karlo; Ralph Gnannt; Anna Winklehner; Michael A Fischer; Olivio F Donati; Daniel Eberli; Tullio Sulser; Hatem Alkadhi; Paul Stolzmann Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2013-10
Authors: Cristian T Badea; Khannan K Athreya; Gabriela Espinosa; Darin Clark; A Paiman Ghafoori; Yifan Li; David G Kirsch; G Allan Johnson; Ananth Annapragada; Ketan B Ghaghada Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-04-02 Impact factor: 3.240
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: 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: K Hellbach; A Sterzik; W Sommer; M Karpitschka; N Hummel; J Casuscelli; M Ingrisch; M Schlemmer; A Graser; Michael Staehler Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 5.315