Sebastian Winklhofer1,2, Jack W Lambert1, Zhen Jane Wang1, Yuxin Sun1, Robert G Gould1, Ronald J Zagoria1, Benjamin M Yeh3. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, M-372, Box 0628, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0628, USA. 2. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, M-372, Box 0628, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0628, USA. Ben.Yeh@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to assess the ability of rapid-kV switching (rs) dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) to reduce peristalsis-related streak artifact. METHODS: rsDECT images of 100 consecutive patients (48 male, 52 female, mean age 57 years) were retrospectively evaluated in this institutional review board-approved study. Image reconstructions included virtual monochromatic 70 and 120 keV images, as well as iodine(-water) and water(-iodine) material decomposition images. We recorded the presence and severity of artifacts qualitatively (4-point scale) and quantitatively [iodine/water concentrations, Hounsfield units, gray scale values (GY)] and compared to corresponding unaffected reference tissue. Similar measures were obtained in DECT images of a peristalsis phantom. Wilcoxon signed-rank and paired t tests were used to compare results between different image reconstructions. RESULTS: Peristalsis-related streak artifacts were found in 49 (49%) of the DECT examinations. Artifacts were significantly more severe in 70, 120, and water(-iodine) images than in iodine(-water) images (qualitative readout P < 0.001, each). Quantitative measurements were significantly different between the artifact and the reference tissue in 70, 120 keV, and water(-iodine) images (P < 0.001 for both HU and GY for each image reconstruction), but not significantly different in iodine(-water) images (iodine concentrations P = 0.088 and GY P = 0.111). Similar results were seen in the peristalsis DECT phantom study. CONCLUSIONS: Peristalsis-related streak artifacts seen in 70, 120 keV, and water(-iodine) images are substantially reduced in iodine(-water) images at rsDECT.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to assess the ability of rapid-kV switching (rs) dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) to reduce peristalsis-related streak artifact. METHODS: rsDECT images of 100 consecutive patients (48 male, 52 female, mean age 57 years) were retrospectively evaluated in this institutional review board-approved study. Image reconstructions included virtual monochromatic 70 and 120 keV images, as well as iodine(-water) and water(-iodine) material decomposition images. We recorded the presence and severity of artifacts qualitatively (4-point scale) and quantitatively [iodine/water concentrations, Hounsfield units, gray scale values (GY)] and compared to corresponding unaffected reference tissue. Similar measures were obtained in DECT images of a peristalsis phantom. Wilcoxon signed-rank and paired t tests were used to compare results between different image reconstructions. RESULTS: Peristalsis-related streak artifacts were found in 49 (49%) of the DECT examinations. Artifacts were significantly more severe in 70, 120, and water(-iodine) images than in iodine(-water) images (qualitative readout P < 0.001, each). Quantitative measurements were significantly different between the artifact and the reference tissue in 70, 120 keV, and water(-iodine) images (P < 0.001 for both HU and GY for each image reconstruction), but not significantly different in iodine(-water) images (iodine concentrations P = 0.088 and GY P = 0.111). Similar results were seen in the peristalsis DECT phantom study. CONCLUSIONS: Peristalsis-related streak artifacts seen in 70, 120 keV, and water(-iodine) images are substantially reduced in iodine(-water) images at rsDECT.
Authors: Franklin Liu; Carlos Cuevas; Albert A Moss; Orpheus Kolokythas; Theodore J Dubinsky; Paul E Kinahan Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Alvin C Silva; Brian G Morse; Amy K Hara; Robert G Paden; Norio Hongo; William Pavlicek Journal: Radiographics Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: S Winklhofer; E Benninger; C Spross; F Morsbach; S Rahm; S Ross; B Jost; M J Thali; P Stolzmann; H Alkadhi; R Guggenberger Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Kyung Su Kim; Jeong Min Lee; Seung Ho Kim; Kyung Won Kim; Soo Jin Kim; Seung Hyun Cho; Joon Koo Han; Byung Ihn Choi Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Olga R Brook; Sofia Gourtsoyianni; Alexander Brook; Anand Mahadevan; Carol Wilcox; Vassilios Raptopoulos Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-03-13 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Brandan Dotson; Jack W Lambert; Zhen J Wang; Yuxin Sun; Michael A Ohliger; Sebastian Winklhofer; Benjamin M Yeh Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2017-03
Authors: Benjamin M Yeh; Paul F FitzGerald; Peter M Edic; Jack W Lambert; Robert E Colborn; Michael E Marino; Paul M Evans; Jeannette C Roberts; Zhen J Wang; Margaret J Wong; Peter J Bonitatibus Journal: Adv Drug Deliv Rev Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 15.470
Authors: Anushri Parakh; Simon Lennartz; Chansik An; Prabhakar Rajiah; Benjamin M Yeh; Frank J Simeone; Dushyant V Sahani; Avinash R Kambadakone Journal: Radiographics Date: 2021 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333