Usman Mahmood1, Natally Horvat2, Joao Vicente Horvat3, Davinia Ryan4, Yiming Gao5, Gabriella Carollo6, Rommel DeOcampo7, Richard K Do8, Seth Katz9, Scott Gerst10, C Ross Schmidtlein11, Lawrence Dauer12, Yusuf Erdi13, Lorenzo Mannelli14. 1. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: mahmoodu@mskcc.org. 2. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: desouzn1@mskcc.org. 3. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: machadoj@mskcc.org. 4. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: ryand4@mskcc.org. 5. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: gaoy1@mskcc.org. 6. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: bellacarollo@yahoo.com. 7. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: deocamr1@mskcc.org. 8. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: dok@mskcc.org. 9. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: katzs2@mskcc.org. 10. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: gersts@mskcc.org. 11. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: schmidtr@mskcc.org. 12. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA; Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: dauerl@mskcc.org. 13. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: erdiy@mskcc.org. 14. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: mannelll@mskcc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Clinical applications of dual energy computed tomography (DECT) have been widely reported; however, the importance of the different image reconstructions and radiation organ dose remains a relevant area of investigation, particularly considering the different commercially available DECT equipment. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the image reliability and compare the information content between several image reconstructions in a rapid-switching DECT (rsDECT), and assess radiation organ dose between rsDECT and conventional single-energy computed tomography (SECT) exams. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study included 98 consecutive patients who had a history of liver cancer and underwent multiphasic liver CT exams with rsDECT applied during the late arterial phase between June 2015 and December 2015. Virtual monochromatic 70 keV, material density images (MDI) iodine (-water) and virtual unenhanced (VUE) images were generated. Radiation dose analysis was performed in a subset of 44 patients who had also undergone a multiphasic SECT examination within 6 months of the rsDECT. Four board-certified abdominal radiologists reviewed 24-25 patients each, and a fifth radiologist re-evaluated all the scans to reach a consensus. The following imaging aspects were assessed by the radiologists: (a) attenuation measurements were made in the liver and spleen in VUE and true unenhanced (TUE) images; (b) subjective evaluation for lesion detection and conspicuity on MDI iodine (-water)/VUE images compared with the virtual monochromatic images/TUE images; and (c) overall image quality using a five-point Likert scale. The radiation dose analyses were evaluated in the subset of 44 patients regarding the following parameters: CTDIvol, dose length product, patient's effective diameter and organ dose using a Monte Carlo-based software, VirtualDose™ (Virtual Phantoms, Inc.) to 21 organs. RESULTS: On average, image noise on the TUE images was 49% higher within the liver (p < 0.0001) and 48% higher within the spleen (p < 0.0001). CT numbers for the spleen were significantly higher on VUE images (p < 0.0001). Twenty-eight lesions in 24/98 (24.5%) patients were not observed on the VUE images. The conspicuity of vascular anatomy was considered better on MDI iodine (-water) Images 26.5% of patients. Using the Likert scale, the rsDECT image quality was considered to be satisfactory. Considering the subset of 44 patients with recent SECT, the organ dose was, on average, 37.4% less with rsDECT. As the patient's effective diameter decreased, the differences in dose between the rsDECT and SECT increased, with the total average organ dose being less by 65.1% when rsDECT was used. CONCLUSION: VUE images in the population had lower image noise than TUE images; however, a few small and hyperdense findings were not characterized on VUE images. Delineation of vascular anatomy was considered better in around a quarter of patients on MDI iodine (-water) images. Finally, radiation dose, particularly organ dose, was found to be lower with rsDECT, especially in smaller patients.
PURPOSE: Clinical applications of dual energy computed tomography (DECT) have been widely reported; however, the importance of the different image reconstructions and radiation organ dose remains a relevant area of investigation, particularly considering the different commercially available DECT equipment. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the image reliability and compare the information content between several image reconstructions in a rapid-switching DECT (rsDECT), and assess radiation organ dose between rsDECT and conventional single-energy computed tomography (SECT) exams. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study included 98 consecutive patients who had a history of liver cancer and underwent multiphasic liver CT exams with rsDECT applied during the late arterial phase between June 2015 and December 2015. Virtual monochromatic 70 keV, material density images (MDI) iodine (-water) and virtual unenhanced (VUE) images were generated. Radiation dose analysis was performed in a subset of 44 patients who had also undergone a multiphasic SECT examination within 6 months of the rsDECT. Four board-certified abdominal radiologists reviewed 24-25 patients each, and a fifth radiologist re-evaluated all the scans to reach a consensus. The following imaging aspects were assessed by the radiologists: (a) attenuation measurements were made in the liver and spleen in VUE and true unenhanced (TUE) images; (b) subjective evaluation for lesion detection and conspicuity on MDIiodine (-water)/VUE images compared with the virtual monochromatic images/TUE images; and (c) overall image quality using a five-point Likert scale. The radiation dose analyses were evaluated in the subset of 44 patients regarding the following parameters: CTDIvol, dose length product, patient's effective diameter and organ dose using a Monte Carlo-based software, VirtualDose™ (Virtual Phantoms, Inc.) to 21 organs. RESULTS: On average, image noise on the TUE images was 49% higher within the liver (p < 0.0001) and 48% higher within the spleen (p < 0.0001). CT numbers for the spleen were significantly higher on VUE images (p < 0.0001). Twenty-eight lesions in 24/98 (24.5%) patients were not observed on the VUE images. The conspicuity of vascular anatomy was considered better on MDIiodine (-water) Images 26.5% of patients. Using the Likert scale, the rsDECT image quality was considered to be satisfactory. Considering the subset of 44 patients with recent SECT, the organ dose was, on average, 37.4% less with rsDECT. As the patient's effective diameter decreased, the differences in dose between the rsDECT and SECT increased, with the total average organ dose being less by 65.1% when rsDECT was used. CONCLUSION: VUE images in the population had lower image noise than TUE images; however, a few small and hyperdense findings were not characterized on VUE images. Delineation of vascular anatomy was considered better in around a quarter of patients on MDIiodine (-water) images. Finally, radiation dose, particularly organ dose, was found to be lower with rsDECT, especially in smaller patients.
Authors: Yoshiko Sagara; Amy K Hara; William Pavlicek; Alvin C Silva; Robert G Paden; Qing Wu Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Cynthia H McCollough; Shuai Leng; Lifeng Yu; Dianna D Cody; John M Boone; Michael F McNitt-Gray Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Carlo N De Cecco; Daniel T Boll; David N Bolus; W Dennis Foley; Ravi K Kaza; Desiree E Morgan; Neil M Rofsky; Dushyant V Sahani; U Joseph Schoepf; William P Shuman; Marilyn J Siegel; Terri J Vrtiska; Benjamin M Yeh; Lincoln L Berland Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Christof M Sommer; Christoph B Schwarzwaelder; Wolfram Stiller; Sebastian T Schindera; Ulrike Stampfl; Nadine Bellemann; Maria Holzschuh; Jan Schmidt; Juergen Weitz; Lars Grenacher; Hans U Kauczor; Boris A Radeleff Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2011-02-24 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Carlo N De Cecco; Giuseppe Muscogiuri; U Joseph Schoepf; Damiano Caruso; Julian L Wichmann; Paola M Cannaò; Christian Canstein; Stephen R Fuller; Lauren Snider; Akos Varga-Szemes; Andrew D Hardie Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: En-Haw Wu; So Yeon Kim; Z Jane Wang; Wei-Chou Chang; Li-Qin Zhao; Benjamin M Yeh Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Lukas Lenga; Franziska Trapp; Moritz H Albrecht; Julian L Wichmann; Addison A Johnson; Ibrahim Yel; Tommaso D'Angelo; Christian Booz; Thomas J Vogl; Simon S Martin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-01-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Usman Mahmood; David D B Bates; Yusuf E Erdi; Lorenzo Mannelli; Giuseppe Corrias; Christopher Kanan Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-03-10