André Euler1,2, Markus M Obmann1, Zsolt Szucs-Farkas3, Achille Mileto4, Caroline Zaehringer1, Anna L Falkowski1, David J Winkel1, Daniele Marin2, Bram Stieltjes1, Bernhard Krauss5, Sebastian T Schindera6. 1. Clinic of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Petersgraben 4, CH-4031, Basel, Switzerland. 2. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Institute of Radiology, Hospital Centre of Biel, Biel, Switzerland. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. Siemens Medical Solutions, Erlangen, Germany. 6. Clinic of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Petersgraben 4, CH-4031, Basel, Switzerland. sschindera@aol.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare image quality and radiation dose of abdominal split-filter dual-energy CT (SF-DECT) combined with monoenergetic imaging to single-energy CT (SECT) with automatic tube voltage selection (ATVS). METHODS: Two-hundred single-source abdominal CT scans were performed as SECT with ATVS (n = 100) and SF-DECT (n = 100). SF-DECT scans were reconstructed and subdivided into composed images (SF-CI) and monoenergetic images at 55 keV (SF-MI). Objective and subjective image quality were compared among single-energy images (SEI), SF-CI and SF-MI. CNR and FOM were separately calculated for the liver (e.g. CNRliv) and the portal vein (CNRpv). Radiation dose was compared using size-specific dose estimate (SSDE). Results of the three groups were compared using non-parametric tests. RESULTS: Image noise of SF-CI was 18% lower compared to SEI and 48% lower compared to SF-MI (p < 0.001). Composed images yielded higher CNRliv over single-energy images (23.4 vs. 20.9; p < 0.001), whereas CNRpv was significantly lower (3.5 vs. 5.2; p < 0.001). Monoenergetic images overcame this inferiority in CNRpv and achieved similar results compared to single-energy images (5.1 vs. 5.2; p > 0.628). Subjective sharpness was equal between single-energy and monoenergetic images and diagnostic confidence was equal between single-energy and composed images. FOMliv was highest for SF-CI. FOMpv was equal for SEI and SF-MI (p = 0.78). SSDE was significant lower for SF-DECT compared to SECT (p < 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of split-filter dual-energy CT images provides comparable objective and subjective image quality at lower radiation dose compared to single-energy CT with ATVS. KEY POINTS: • Split-filter dual-energy results in 18% lower noise compared to single-energy with ATVS. • Split-filter dual-energy results in 11% lower SSDE compared to single-energy with ATVS. • Spectral shaping of split-filter dual-energy leads to an increased dose-efficiency.
OBJECTIVES: To compare image quality and radiation dose of abdominal split-filter dual-energy CT (SF-DECT) combined with monoenergetic imaging to single-energy CT (SECT) with automatic tube voltage selection (ATVS). METHODS: Two-hundred single-source abdominal CT scans were performed as SECT with ATVS (n = 100) and SF-DECT (n = 100). SF-DECT scans were reconstructed and subdivided into composed images (SF-CI) and monoenergetic images at 55 keV (SF-MI). Objective and subjective image quality were compared among single-energy images (SEI), SF-CI and SF-MI. CNR and FOM were separately calculated for the liver (e.g. CNRliv) and the portal vein (CNRpv). Radiation dose was compared using size-specific dose estimate (SSDE). Results of the three groups were compared using non-parametric tests. RESULTS: Image noise of SF-CI was 18% lower compared to SEI and 48% lower compared to SF-MI (p < 0.001). Composed images yielded higher CNRliv over single-energy images (23.4 vs. 20.9; p < 0.001), whereas CNRpv was significantly lower (3.5 vs. 5.2; p < 0.001). Monoenergetic images overcame this inferiority in CNRpv and achieved similar results compared to single-energy images (5.1 vs. 5.2; p > 0.628). Subjective sharpness was equal between single-energy and monoenergetic images and diagnostic confidence was equal between single-energy and composed images. FOMliv was highest for SF-CI. FOMpv was equal for SEI and SF-MI (p = 0.78). SSDE was significant lower for SF-DECT compared to SECT (p < 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of split-filter dual-energy CT images provides comparable objective and subjective image quality at lower radiation dose compared to single-energy CT with ATVS. KEY POINTS: • Split-filter dual-energy results in 18% lower noise compared to single-energy with ATVS. • Split-filter dual-energy results in 11% lower SSDE compared to single-energy with ATVS. • Spectral shaping of split-filter dual-energy leads to an increased dose-efficiency.
Authors: S T Schindera; A Winklehner; H Alkadhi; R Goetti; M Fischer; R Gnannt; Z Szucs-Farkas Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Stefanie Mangold; Carlo N De Cecco; U Joseph Schoepf; Ricardo T Yamada; Akos Varga-Szemes; Andrew C Stubenrauch; Damiano Caruso; Stephen R Fuller; Thomas J Vogl; Konstantin Nikolaou; Thomas M Todoran; Julian L Wichmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ranliang Hu; Laleh Daftari Besheli; Joseph Young; Markus Wu; Stuart Pomerantz; Michael H Lev; Rajiv Gupta Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: André Euler; Anushri Parakh; Anna L Falkowski; Sebastian Manneck; David Dashti; Bernhard Krauss; Zsolt Szucs-Farkas; Sebastian T Schindera Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Sarah C Metzger; Michaela Koehm; Julian L Wichmann; Stefan Buettner; Jan-Erik Scholtz; Martin Beeres; J Matthias Kerl; Moritz H Albrecht; Renate Hammerstingl; Thomas J Vogl; Ralf W Bauer Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Caroline Mayer; Mathias Meyer; Christian Fink; Bernhard Schmidt; Martin Sedlmair; Stefan O Schoenberg; Thomas Henzler Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Serdar Charyyev; Tonghe Wang; Yang Lei; Beth Ghavidel; Jonathan J Beitler; Mark McDonald; Walter J Curran; Tian Liu; Jun Zhou; Xiaofeng Yang Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-10-28 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Hildegard M Wichtmann; Kai R Laukamp; Sebastian Manneck; Konrad Appelt; Bram Stieltjes; Daniel T Boll; Matthias R Benz; Markus M Obmann Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2022-09-30
Authors: Lucian Beer; Michael Toepker; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Christian Schestak; Anja Dutschke; Martin Schindl; Alexander Wressnegger; Helmut Ringl; Paul Apfaltrer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Bernhard Petritsch; Pauline Pannenbecker; Andreas M Weng; Jan-Peter Grunz; Simon Veldhoen; Thorsten A Bley; Aleksander Kosmala Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-05
Authors: Markus M Obmann; Gopal Punjabi; Verena C Obmann; Daniel T Boll; Tobias Heye; Matthias R Benz; Benjamin M Yeh Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-06-30
Authors: Christoph Stern; Stefan Sommer; Christoph Germann; Julien Galley; Christian W A Pfirrmann; Benjamin Fritz; Reto Sutter Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 5.315