OBJECTIVES: To evaluate image quality parameters of virtual mono-energetic (MonoE) and conventional (CR) imaging derived from a dual-layer spectral detector CT (DLCT) in oncological follow-up venous phase imaging of the chest and comparison with conventional multi-detector CT (CRMDCT) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 55 patients who had oncologic staging with conventional CT and DLCT of the chest in venous phase were included in this study. Established image quality parameters were derived from all datasets in defined thoracic landmarks. Attenuation, image noise, and signal-/contrast- to noise ratios (SNR, CNR) were compared between CRDLCT and MonoE as well as CRMDCT imaging. Two readers performed subjective image analysis. RESULTS: CRMDCT showed significant lower attenuation values compared to CRDLCT and MonoE at 40-70keV (p≤0.05). Moreover, MonoE at 40-70keV revealed significantly higher attenuations values compared to CRDLCT (p<0.001). Noise was statistically lower in CRMDCT compared with CRDLCT and MonoE at 40keV (11.4±2.3 HU vs. 12.0±3.1 HU vs. 11.7±5.2 HU; p<0.001). In contrast, all MonoE levels showed significantly lower noise levels compared to CRDLCT (p<0.001). SNR was not significantly different between CRMDCT and CRDLCT (13.5±3.7 vs. 14.4±5.3; p>0.99). SNR values were significantly increased for MonoE at 40-80keV compared to CRMDCT and CRDLCT (p<0.001). CRDLCT and MonoE (40-70keV) from DLCT revealed significantly higher CNR values than CRMDCT (p<0.001). In subjective analysis, MonoE at 40keV surpassed all other image reconstructions except for noise in MonoE at 70 keV. CONCLUSION: In dual-layer spectral detector CT, MonoE at low keV showed superior image quality compared to conventional images derived from the same system and may therefore be added to clinical routine imaging protocols. Whether MonoE reconstructions yield additional diagnostic information is still unknown.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate image quality parameters of virtual mono-energetic (MonoE) and conventional (CR) imaging derived from a dual-layer spectral detector CT (DLCT) in oncological follow-up venous phase imaging of the chest and comparison with conventional multi-detector CT (CRMDCT) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 55 patients who had oncologic staging with conventional CT and DLCT of the chest in venous phase were included in this study. Established image quality parameters were derived from all datasets in defined thoracic landmarks. Attenuation, image noise, and signal-/contrast- to noise ratios (SNR, CNR) were compared between CRDLCT and MonoE as well as CRMDCT imaging. Two readers performed subjective image analysis. RESULTS: CRMDCT showed significant lower attenuation values compared to CRDLCT and MonoE at 40-70keV (p≤0.05). Moreover, MonoE at 40-70keV revealed significantly higher attenuations values compared to CRDLCT (p<0.001). Noise was statistically lower in CRMDCT compared with CRDLCT and MonoE at 40keV (11.4±2.3 HU vs. 12.0±3.1 HU vs. 11.7±5.2 HU; p<0.001). In contrast, all MonoE levels showed significantly lower noise levels compared to CRDLCT (p<0.001). SNR was not significantly different between CRMDCT and CRDLCT (13.5±3.7 vs. 14.4±5.3; p>0.99). SNR values were significantly increased for MonoE at 40-80keV compared to CRMDCT and CRDLCT (p<0.001). CRDLCT and MonoE (40-70keV) from DLCT revealed significantly higher CNR values than CRMDCT (p<0.001). In subjective analysis, MonoE at 40keV surpassed all other image reconstructions except for noise in MonoE at 70 keV. CONCLUSION: In dual-layer spectral detector CT, MonoE at low keV showed superior image quality compared to conventional images derived from the same system and may therefore be added to clinical routine imaging protocols. Whether MonoE reconstructions yield additional diagnostic information is still unknown.
Authors: Thorsten Sellerer; Peter B Noël; Manuel Patino; Anushri Parakh; Sebastian Ehn; Sascha Zeiter; Jasmin A Holz; Johannes Hammel; Alexander A Fingerle; Franz Pfeiffer; David Maintz; Ernst J Rummeny; Daniela Muenzel; Dushyant V Sahani Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kai Mei; Sebastian Ehn; Markus Oechsner; Felix K Kopp; Daniela Pfeiffer; Alexander A Fingerle; Franz Pfeiffer; Stephanie E Combs; Jan J Wilkens; Ernst J Rummeny; Peter B Noël Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2018-08-22
Authors: Andra-Iza Iuga; Jonas Doerner; Florian Siedek; Stefan Haneder; Jonathan Byrtus; Julian A Luetkens; David Maintz; Tilman Hickethier Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 1.817