Nils Große Hokamp1,2,3, Nuran Abdullayev4, Thorsten Persigehl4, Max Schlaak5, Christian Wybranski4, Jasmin A Holz4, Thomas Streichert6, Hatem Alkadhi7, David Maintz4, Stefan Haneder4. 1. Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. nils.grosse-hokamp@uk-koeln.de. 2. Department of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. nils.grosse-hokamp@uk-koeln.de. 3. Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA. nils.grosse-hokamp@uk-koeln.de. 4. Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 5. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 6. Institute for Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 7. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively assess precision, reproducibility, and repeatability of iodine maps from spectral detector CT (SDCT) in a phantom and in patients with repetitive examination of the abdomen. METHODS: Seventy-seven patients who underwent examination two (n = 52) or three (n = 25) times according to clinical indications were included in this IRB-approved, retrospective study. The anthropomorphic liver phantom and all patients were scanned with a standardized protocol (SSDE in patients 15.8 mGy). In patients, i.v. contrast was administered and portal venous images were acquired using bolus-tracking technique. The phantom was scanned three times at three time points; in one acquisition, image reconstruction was repeated three times. Region of interest (ROI) were placed automatically (phantom) or manually (patients) in the liver parenchyma (mimic) and the portal vein; attenuation in conventional images (CI [HU]) and iodine map concentrations (IM [mg/ml]) were recorded. The coefficient of variation (CV [%]) was used to compare between repetitive acquisitions. If present, additional ROI were placed in cysts (n = 29) and hemangioma (n = 29). RESULTS: Differences throughout all phantom examinations were < 2%. In patients, differences between two examinations were higher (CV for CI/IM: portal vein, 2.5%/3.2%; liver parenchyma, -0.5%/-3.0% for CI/IM). In 80% of patients, these differences were within a ± 20% limit. Differences in benign liver lesions were even higher (68% and 38%, for CI and IM, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Iodine maps from SDCT allow for reliable quantification of iodine content in phantoms; while in patients, rather large differences between repetitive examinations are likely due to differences in biological distribution. This underlines the need for careful clinical interpretation and further protocol optimization. KEY POINTS: • Spectral detector computed tomography allows for reliable quantification of iodine in phantoms. • In patients, the offset between repetitive examinations varies by 20%, likely due to differences in biological distribution. • Clinically, iodine maps should be interpreted with caution and should take the intra-individual variability of iodine distribution over time into account.
OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively assess precision, reproducibility, and repeatability of iodine maps from spectral detector CT (SDCT) in a phantom and in patients with repetitive examination of the abdomen. METHODS: Seventy-seven patients who underwent examination two (n = 52) or three (n = 25) times according to clinical indications were included in this IRB-approved, retrospective study. The anthropomorphic liver phantom and all patients were scanned with a standardized protocol (SSDE in patients 15.8 mGy). In patients, i.v. contrast was administered and portal venous images were acquired using bolus-tracking technique. The phantom was scanned three times at three time points; in one acquisition, image reconstruction was repeated three times. Region of interest (ROI) were placed automatically (phantom) or manually (patients) in the liver parenchyma (mimic) and the portal vein; attenuation in conventional images (CI [HU]) and iodine map concentrations (IM [mg/ml]) were recorded. The coefficient of variation (CV [%]) was used to compare between repetitive acquisitions. If present, additional ROI were placed in cysts (n = 29) and hemangioma (n = 29). RESULTS: Differences throughout all phantom examinations were < 2%. In patients, differences between two examinations were higher (CV for CI/IM: portal vein, 2.5%/3.2%; liver parenchyma, -0.5%/-3.0% for CI/IM). In 80% of patients, these differences were within a ± 20% limit. Differences in benign liver lesions were even higher (68% and 38%, for CI and IM, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Iodine maps from SDCT allow for reliable quantification of iodine content in phantoms; while in patients, rather large differences between repetitive examinations are likely due to differences in biological distribution. This underlines the need for careful clinical interpretation and further protocol optimization. KEY POINTS: • Spectral detector computed tomography allows for reliable quantification of iodine in phantoms. • In patients, the offset between repetitive examinations varies by 20%, likely due to differences in biological distribution. • Clinically, iodine maps should be interpreted with caution and should take the intra-individual variability of iodine distribution over time into account.
Authors: Rivka Kessner; Nils Große Hokamp; Les Ciancibello; Nikhil Ramaiya; Karin A Herrmann Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-05-24 Impact factor: 3.039
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: Robert Peter Reimer; Nils Große Hokamp; Julius Niehoff; David Zopfs; Simon Lennartz; Mariam Heidar; Roger Wahba; Dirk Stippel; David Maintz; Daniel Pinto Dos Santos; Christian Wybranski Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 3.240