PURPOSE: Single-energy low tube potential (SE-LTP) and dual-energy virtual monoenergetic (DE-VM) CT images both increase the conspicuity of hepatic lesions by increasing iodine signal. Our purpose was to compare the conspicuity of proven liver lesions, artifacts, and radiologist preferences in dose-matched SE-LTP and DE-VM images. METHODS: Thirty-one patients with 72 proven liver lesions (21 benign, 51 malignant) underwent full-dose contrast-enhanced dual-energy CT (DECT). Half-dose images were obtained using single tube reconstruction of the dual-source SE-LTP projection data (80 or 100 kV), and by inserting noise into dual-energy projection data, with DE-VM images reconstructed from 40 to 70 keV. Three blinded gastrointestinal radiologists evaluated half-dose SE-LTP and DE-VM images, ranking and grading liver lesion conspicuity and diagnostic confidence (4-point scale) on a per-lesion basis. Image quality (noise, artifacts, sharpness) was evaluated, and overall image preference was ranked on per-patient basis. Lesion-to-liver contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was compared between techniques. RESULTS: Mean lesion size was 1.5 ± 1.2 cm. Across the readers, the mean conspicuity ratings for 40, 45, and 50 keV half-dose DE-VM images were superior compared to other half-dose image sets (p < 0.0001). Per-lesion diagnostic confidence was similar between half-dose SE-LTP compared to half-dose DE-VM images (p ≥ 0.05; 1.19 vs. 1.24-1.32). However, SE-LTP images had less noise and artifacts and were sharper compared to DE-VM images less than 70 keV (p < 0.05). On a per-patient basis, radiologists preferred SE-LTP images the most and preferred 40-50 keV the least (p < 0.0001). Lesion CNR was also higher in SE-LTP images than DE-VM images (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: For the same applied dose level, liver lesions were more conspicuous using DE-VM compared to SE-LTP; however, SE-LTP images were preferred more than any single DE-VM energy level, likely due to lower noise and artifacts.
PURPOSE: Single-energy low tube potential (SE-LTP) and dual-energy virtual monoenergetic (DE-VM) CT images both increase the conspicuity of hepatic lesions by increasing iodine signal. Our purpose was to compare the conspicuity of proven liver lesions, artifacts, and radiologist preferences in dose-matched SE-LTP and DE-VM images. METHODS: Thirty-one patients with 72 proven liver lesions (21 benign, 51 malignant) underwent full-dose contrast-enhanced dual-energy CT (DECT). Half-dose images were obtained using single tube reconstruction of the dual-source SE-LTP projection data (80 or 100 kV), and by inserting noise into dual-energy projection data, with DE-VM images reconstructed from 40 to 70 keV. Three blinded gastrointestinal radiologists evaluated half-dose SE-LTP and DE-VM images, ranking and grading liver lesion conspicuity and diagnostic confidence (4-point scale) on a per-lesion basis. Image quality (noise, artifacts, sharpness) was evaluated, and overall image preference was ranked on per-patient basis. Lesion-to-liver contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was compared between techniques. RESULTS: Mean lesion size was 1.5 ± 1.2 cm. Across the readers, the mean conspicuity ratings for 40, 45, and 50 keV half-dose DE-VM images were superior compared to other half-dose image sets (p < 0.0001). Per-lesion diagnostic confidence was similar between half-dose SE-LTP compared to half-dose DE-VM images (p ≥ 0.05; 1.19 vs. 1.24-1.32). However, SE-LTP images had less noise and artifacts and were sharper compared to DE-VM images less than 70 keV (p < 0.05). On a per-patient basis, radiologists preferred SE-LTP images the most and preferred 40-50 keV the least (p < 0.0001). Lesion CNR was also higher in SE-LTP images than DE-VM images (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: For the same applied dose level, liver lesions were more conspicuous using DE-VM compared to SE-LTP; however, SE-LTP images were preferred more than any single DE-VM energy level, likely due to lower noise and artifacts.
Authors: Adam T Froemming; Akira Kawashima; Naoki Takahashi; Robert P Hartman; Mark A Nathan; Rickey E Carter; Lifeng Yu; Shuai Leng; Hiroki Kagoshima; Cynthia H McCollough; Joel G Fletcher Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: William P Shuman; Douglas E Green; Janet M Busey; Lee M Mitsumori; Eunice Choi; Kent M Koprowicz; Kalpana M Kanal Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Joel G Fletcher; Lifeng Yu; Zhoubo Li; Armando Manduca; Daniel J Blezek; David M Hough; Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Gregory C Brickner; Joseph C Cernigliaro; Amy K Hara; Jeff L Fidler; David S Lake; Maria Shiung; David Lewis; Shuai Leng; Kurt E Augustine; Rickey E Carter; David R Holmes; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Carlo N De Cecco; Damiano Caruso; U Joseph Schoepf; Julian L Wichmann; Janet R Ter Louw; Jonathan D Perry; Melissa M Picard; Amanda R Schaefer; Leland W Parker; Andrew D Hardie Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Daniele Marin; Rendon C Nelson; Sebastian T Schindera; Samuel Richard; Richard S Youngblood; Terry T Yoshizumi; Ehsan Samei Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Stefanie Bette; Josua A Decker; Franziska M Braun; Judith Becker; Mark Haerting; Thomas Haeckel; Michael Gebhard; Franka Risch; Piotr Woźnicki; Christian Scheurig-Muenkler; Thomas J Kroencke; Florian Schwarz Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-05-14
Authors: Hao Gong; Jeffrey F Marsh; Karen N D'Souza; Nathan R Huber; Kishore Rajendran; Joel G Fletcher; Cynthia H McCollough; Shuai Leng Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2021-04-19