OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the image quality and lesion conspicuity of virtual-monochromatic-imaging (VMI) with dual-layer DECT (DL-DECT) for reduced-iodine-load multiphasic-hepatic CT. METHODS: Forty-five adults with renal dysfunction who had undergone hepatic DL-DECT with 300-mgI/kg were included. VMI (40-70-keV, DL-DECT-VMI) was generated at each enhancement phase. As controls, 45 matched patients undergoing standard 120-kVp protocol (120-kVp, 600-mgI/kg, and iterative reconstruction) were included. We compared the size-specific dose estimate (SSDE), image noise, CT attenuation, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) between protocols. Two radiologists scored the image quality and lesion conspicuity. RESULTS: SSDE was significantly lower in DL-DECT group (p < 0.01). Image noise of DL-DECT-VMI was almost constant at each keV (differences of ≤15%) and equivalent to or lower than of 120-kVp. As the energy decreased, CT attenuation and CNR gradually increased; the values of 55-60 keV images were almost equivalent to those of standard 120-kVp. The highest scores for overall quality and lesion conspicuity were assigned at 40-keV followed by 45 to 55-keV, all of which were similar to or better than of 120-kVp. CONCLUSIONS: For multiphasic-hepatic CT with 50% iodine-load, DL-DECT-VMI at 40- to 55-keV provides equivalent or better image quality and lesion conspicuity without increasing radiation dose compared with standard 120-kVp protocol. KEY POINTS: • 40-55-keV yields optimal image quality for half-iodine-load multiphasic-hepatic CT with DL-DECT. • DL-DECT protocol decreases radiation exposure compared with 120-kVp scans with iterative reconstruction. • 40-keV images maximise conspicuity of hepatocellular carcinoma especially at hepatic-arterial phase.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the image quality and lesion conspicuity of virtual-monochromatic-imaging (VMI) with dual-layer DECT (DL-DECT) for reduced-iodine-load multiphasic-hepatic CT. METHODS: Forty-five adults with renal dysfunction who had undergone hepatic DL-DECT with 300-mgI/kg were included. VMI (40-70-keV, DL-DECT-VMI) was generated at each enhancement phase. As controls, 45 matched patients undergoing standard 120-kVp protocol (120-kVp, 600-mgI/kg, and iterative reconstruction) were included. We compared the size-specific dose estimate (SSDE), image noise, CT attenuation, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) between protocols. Two radiologists scored the image quality and lesion conspicuity. RESULTS: SSDE was significantly lower in DL-DECT group (p < 0.01). Image noise of DL-DECT-VMI was almost constant at each keV (differences of ≤15%) and equivalent to or lower than of 120-kVp. As the energy decreased, CT attenuation and CNR gradually increased; the values of 55-60 keV images were almost equivalent to those of standard 120-kVp. The highest scores for overall quality and lesion conspicuity were assigned at 40-keV followed by 45 to 55-keV, all of which were similar to or better than of 120-kVp. CONCLUSIONS: For multiphasic-hepatic CT with 50% iodine-load, DL-DECT-VMI at 40- to 55-keV provides equivalent or better image quality and lesion conspicuity without increasing radiation dose compared with standard 120-kVp protocol. KEY POINTS: • 40-55-keV yields optimal image quality for half-iodine-load multiphasic-hepatic CT with DL-DECT. • DL-DECT protocol decreases radiation exposure compared with 120-kVp scans with iterative reconstruction. • 40-keV images maximise conspicuity of hepatocellular carcinoma especially at hepatic-arterial phase.
Authors: Stefanie Mangold; Julian L Wichmann; U Joseph Schoepf; Zachary B Poole; Christian Canstein; Akos Varga-Szemes; Damiano Caruso; Fabian Bamberg; Konstantin Nikolaou; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kalpana M Kanal; Jonathan H Chung; Jin Wang; Puneet Bhargava; Jennifer R Kohr; William P Shuman; Brent K Stewart Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Mukta D Agrawal; George R Oliveira; Sanjeeva P Kalva; Daniella F Pinho; Ronald S Arellano; Dushyant V Sahani Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Simon Lennartz; Nils Große Hokamp; Charlotte Zäske; David Zopfs; Grischa Bratke; Andreas Glauner; David Maintz; Thorsten Persigehl; De-Hua Chang; Tilman Hickethier Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 3.039