Matteo Bonatti1, Fabio Lombardo2, Giulia A Zamboni2, Patrizia Pernter3, Roberto Pozzi Mucelli2, Giampietro Bonatti3. 1. Department of Radiology, Bolzano Central Hospital, 5 Boehler Street, 39100, Bolzano, Italy. matteobonatti@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Verona, 10 LA Scuro Place, 37134, Verona, Italy. 3. Department of Radiology, Bolzano Central Hospital, 5 Boehler Street, 39100, Bolzano, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of virtual non-contrast (VNC) images in detecting intracranial haemorrhages (ICHs). METHODS: Sixty-seven consecutive patients with and 67 without ICH who underwent unenhanced brain CT and DECT angiography were included. Two radiologists independently evaluated VNC and true non-contrast (TNC) images for ICH presence and type. Inter-observer agreement for VNC and TNC image evaluation was calculated. Sensitivity and specificity of VNC images for ICH detection were calculated using Fisher's exact test. VNC and TNC images were compared for ICH extent (qualitatively and quantitatively) and conspicuity assessment. RESULTS: On TNC images 116 different haemorrhages were detected in 67 patients. Inter-observer agreement ranged from 0.98-1.00 for TNC images and from 0.86-1.00 for VNC images. VNC sensitivity ranged from 0.90-1, according to the different ICH types, and specificity from 0.97-1. Qualitatively, ICH extent was underestimated on VNC images in 11.9% of cases. Haemorrhage volume did not show statistically significant differences between VNC and TNC images. Mean haemorrhage conspicuity was significantly lower on VNC images than on TNC images for both readers (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: VNC images are accurate for ICH detection. Haemorrhages are less conspicuous on VNC images and their extent may be underestimated. KEY POINTS: • VNC images represent a reproducible tool for detecting ICH. • ICH can be identified on VNC images with high sensitivity and specificity. • Intracranial haemorrhages are less conspicuous on VNC images than on TNC images. • Intracranial haemorrhages extent may be underestimated on VNC images.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of virtual non-contrast (VNC) images in detecting intracranial haemorrhages (ICHs). METHODS: Sixty-seven consecutive patients with and 67 without ICH who underwent unenhanced brain CT and DECT angiography were included. Two radiologists independently evaluated VNC and true non-contrast (TNC) images for ICH presence and type. Inter-observer agreement for VNC and TNC image evaluation was calculated. Sensitivity and specificity of VNC images for ICH detection were calculated using Fisher's exact test. VNC and TNC images were compared for ICH extent (qualitatively and quantitatively) and conspicuity assessment. RESULTS: On TNC images 116 different haemorrhages were detected in 67 patients. Inter-observer agreement ranged from 0.98-1.00 for TNC images and from 0.86-1.00 for VNC images. VNC sensitivity ranged from 0.90-1, according to the different ICH types, and specificity from 0.97-1. Qualitatively, ICH extent was underestimated on VNC images in 11.9% of cases. Haemorrhage volume did not show statistically significant differences between VNC and TNC images. Mean haemorrhage conspicuity was significantly lower on VNC images than on TNC images for both readers (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: VNC images are accurate for ICH detection. Haemorrhages are less conspicuous on VNC images and their extent may be underestimated. KEY POINTS: • VNC images represent a reproducible tool for detecting ICH. • ICH can be identified on VNC images with high sensitivity and specificity. • Intracranial haemorrhages are less conspicuous on VNC images than on TNC images. • Intracranial haemorrhages extent may be underestimated on VNC images.
Authors: Michael Toepker; Thomas Moritz; Bernhard Krauss; Michael Weber; Gordon Euller; Thomas Mang; Florian Wolf; Christian J Herold; Helmut Ringl Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Alida A Postma; Paul A M Hofman; Annika A R Stadler; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Maud P M Tijssen; Joachim E Wildberger Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Sascha Kaufmann; Alexander Sauter; Daniel Spira; Sergios Gatidis; Dominik Ketelsen; Martin Heuschmid; Claus D Claussen; Christoph Thomas Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Henriëtte E Westerlaan; J M C van Dijk; M J van Dijk; Marijke C Jansen-van der Weide; Jan Cees de Groot; Rob J M Groen; Jan Jakob A Mooij; Matthijs Oudkerk Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-10-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Su Young Yun; Young Jin Heo; Hae Woong Jeong; Jin Wook Baek; Hye Jung Choo; Gi Won Shin; Sung Tae Kim; Young Gyun Jeong; Ji Young Lee; Hyun Seok Jung Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Maarten van den Broek; Danielle Byrne; Daniel Lyndon; Bonnie Niu; Shu Min Yu; Axel Rohr; Fabio Settecase Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2021-08-11 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: F Kauw; V Y Ding; J W Dankbaar; F van Ommen; G Zhu; D B Boothroyd; D N Wolman; L Molvin; H W A M de Jong; L J Kappelle; B K Velthuis; J J Heit; M Wintermark Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-08-11 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Emmanuel Kobina Mesi Edzie; Klenam Dzefi-Tettey; Edmund Kwakye Brakohiapa; Philip Narteh Gorleku; Eric Aidoo; Kwasi Agyen-Mensah; Peter Appiah-Thompson; Adu Tutu Amankwa; Ewurama Andam Idun; Frank Quarshie; Richard Ato Edzie; Benard Osei; Prosper Dziwornu; Abdul Raman Asemah Journal: Pan Afr Med J Date: 2021-12-16