OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the reliability and comparability of virtual unenhanced (VUE) attenuation values derived from scans of a single-source, dual-energy computed tomography using a split-filter (tbDECT) to a dual-source dual-energy CT (dsDECT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, comparisons for tbDECT and dsDECT were made within and between different dual-energy platforms. For the interscanner comparison, 126 patients were scanned with both scanners within a time interval of 224 ± 180 days; for the intrascanner comparison, another 90 patients were scanned twice with the same scanner within a time interval of 136 ± 140 days. Virtual unenhanced images were processed off of venous phase series. Attenuation values of 7 different tissues were recorded. Disagreement for VUE HU measurements greater than 10 HU between 2 scans was defined as inadequate. RESULTS: The interscanner analysis showed significant difference between tbDE and dsDE VUE CT values (P < 0.01) for 6 of 7 organs. Percentage of cases that had more than 10 HU difference between tbDE and dsDE for an individual patient ranged between 15% (left kidney) and 62% (spleen).The intrascanner analysis showed no significant difference between repeat scans for both tbDECT and dsDECT (P > 0.05). However, intrascanner disagreements for the VUE HU measurements greater than 10 HU were recorded in 10% of patients scanned on the tbDECT and 0% of patients scanned on the dsDECT. The organs with the highest portion of greater than 10 HU errors were the liver and the aorta (both 20%). CONCLUSIONS: Dual-energy techniques vary in reproducibility of VUE attenuation values. In the current study, tbDECT demonstrated higher variation in VUE HU measurements in comparison to a dsDECT. Virtual unenhanced HU measurements cannot be reliably compared on follow-up CT, if these 2 different dual-energy CT platforms are used.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the reliability and comparability of virtual unenhanced (VUE) attenuation values derived from scans of a single-source, dual-energy computed tomography using a split-filter (tbDECT) to a dual-source dual-energy CT (dsDECT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, comparisons for tbDECT and dsDECT were made within and between different dual-energy platforms. For the interscanner comparison, 126 patients were scanned with both scanners within a time interval of 224 ± 180 days; for the intrascanner comparison, another 90 patients were scanned twice with the same scanner within a time interval of 136 ± 140 days. Virtual unenhanced images were processed off of venous phase series. Attenuation values of 7 different tissues were recorded. Disagreement for VUE HU measurements greater than 10 HU between 2 scans was defined as inadequate. RESULTS: The interscanner analysis showed significant difference between tbDE and dsDE VUE CT values (P < 0.01) for 6 of 7 organs. Percentage of cases that had more than 10 HU difference between tbDE and dsDE for an individual patient ranged between 15% (left kidney) and 62% (spleen).The intrascanner analysis showed no significant difference between repeat scans for both tbDECT and dsDECT (P > 0.05). However, intrascanner disagreements for the VUE HU measurements greater than 10 HU were recorded in 10% of patients scanned on the tbDECT and 0% of patients scanned on the dsDECT. The organs with the highest portion of greater than 10 HU errors were the liver and the aorta (both 20%). CONCLUSIONS: Dual-energy techniques vary in reproducibility of VUE attenuation values. In the current study, tbDECT demonstrated higher variation in VUE HU measurements in comparison to a dsDECT. Virtual unenhanced HU measurements cannot be reliably compared on follow-up CT, if these 2 different dual-energy CT platforms are used.
Authors: Kai Roman Laukamp; Simon Lennartz; Vivian Ho; Nils Große Hokamp; David Zopfs; Amit Gupta; Frank Philipp Graner; Jan Borggrefe; Robert Gilkeson; Nikhil Ramaiya Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Simon Lennartz; Kai Roman Laukamp; Yasmeen Tandon; Michelle Jordan; Nils Große Hokamp; David Zopfs; Lenhard Pennig; Markus Obmann; Robert C Gilkeson; Karin A Herrmann; Nikhil Ramaiya; Amit Gupta Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-03-14
Authors: Jasmin A Holz; Hatem Alkadhi; Kai R Laukamp; Simon Lennartz; Carola Heneweer; Michael Püsken; Thorsten Persigehl; David Maintz; Nils Große Hokamp Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 4.379
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