OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare image quality of single-source dual-energy CT (SS-DECT) with third-generation dual-source dual-energy CT (DS-DECT) in head and neck cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred two patients with histologically proven head and neck cancer were prospectively randomized to undergo radiation dose-matched SS-DECT (n = 51, 120 kV, split-filter technique, 384 ref. mAs) or DS-DECT (n = 51, 80/Sn150 kV, tube A 100/tube B 67 ref. mAs). Inline default images (DI) and virtual monoenergetic images (VMI) for two different low energies (40 and 60 keV) were reconstructed. Objective image quality was evaluated as dose-normalized contrast to noise ratio (CNRD), and subjective image quality was rated on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: In both groups, highest CNRD values for vessel and tumor attenuation were obtained at 40 keV. DS-DECT was significantly better than SS-DECT regarding vessel and tumor attenuation. Overall subjective image quality in the SS-DECT group was highest on the DI followed by 40 keV and 60 keV. In the DS-DECT group, subjective image quality was highest at 40 keV followed by 60 keV and the DI. Forty kiloelectron volts and 60 keV were significantly better in the DS-DECT compared to the SS-DECT group (both p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In split-filter SS-DECT as well as in DS-DECT, highest overall image quality in head and neck imaging can be obtained with a combination of DI and low keV reconstructions. DS-DECT is superior to split-filter SS-DECT in terms of subjective image quality and vessel and tumor attenuation. KEY POINTS: • Image quality was diagnostic with both dual-energy techniques; however, the dual-source technique delivered significantly better results. • Highest overall image quality in head and neck imaging can be obtained with a combination of default images and low keV reconstructions with both dual-energy techniques. • The results of this study may have relevance for the decision-making process regarding replacement of CT scanners and focused patient examination considering image quality and subsequent therapeutic decision-making.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare image quality of single-source dual-energy CT (SS-DECT) with third-generation dual-source dual-energy CT (DS-DECT) in head and neck cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred two patients with histologically proven head and neck cancer were prospectively randomized to undergo radiation dose-matched SS-DECT (n = 51, 120 kV, split-filter technique, 384 ref. mAs) or DS-DECT (n = 51, 80/Sn150 kV, tube A 100/tube B 67 ref. mAs). Inline default images (DI) and virtual monoenergetic images (VMI) for two different low energies (40 and 60 keV) were reconstructed. Objective image quality was evaluated as dose-normalized contrast to noise ratio (CNRD), and subjective image quality was rated on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: In both groups, highest CNRD values for vessel and tumor attenuation were obtained at 40 keV. DS-DECT was significantly better than SS-DECT regarding vessel and tumor attenuation. Overall subjective image quality in the SS-DECT group was highest on the DI followed by 40 keV and 60 keV. In the DS-DECT group, subjective image quality was highest at 40 keV followed by 60 keV and the DI. Forty kiloelectron volts and 60 keV were significantly better in the DS-DECT compared to the SS-DECT group (both p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In split-filter SS-DECT as well as in DS-DECT, highest overall image quality in head and neck imaging can be obtained with a combination of DI and low keV reconstructions. DS-DECT is superior to split-filter SS-DECT in terms of subjective image quality and vessel and tumor attenuation. KEY POINTS: • Image quality was diagnostic with both dual-energy techniques; however, the dual-source technique delivered significantly better results. • Highest overall image quality in head and neck imaging can be obtained with a combination of default images and low keV reconstructions with both dual-energy techniques. • The results of this study may have relevance for the decision-making process regarding replacement of CT scanners and focused patient examination considering image quality and subsequent therapeutic decision-making.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diagnostic imaging; Head and neck neoplasms; Image enhancement
Authors: Michael Toepker; Christian Czerny; Helmut Ringl; Julia Fruehwald-Pallamar; Florian Wolf; Michael Weber; Oliver Ploder; Clemens Klug Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2013-12-25 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Sebastian Faby; Stefan Kuchenbecker; Stefan Sawall; David Simons; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Michael Lell; Marc Kachelrieß Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Nadine Kaemmerer; Michael Brand; Matthias Hammon; Matthias May; Wolfgang Wuest; Bernhard Krauss; Michael Uder; Michael M Lell Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 6.016
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: Jan-Erik Scholtz; Moritz Kaup; Johannes Kraft; Eva-Maria Nöske; Friedrich Scheerer; Boris Schulz; Iris Burck; Jens Wagenblast; J Matthias Kerl; Ralf W Bauer; Thomas Lehnert; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2015-03-26 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Julian L Wichmann; Eva-Maria Nöske; Johannes Kraft; Iris Burck; Jens Wagenblast; Anne Eckardt; Claudia Frellesen; J Matthias Kerl; Ralf W Bauer; Boris Bodelle; Thomas Lehnert; Thomas J Vogl; Boris Schulz Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: J Heikkinen; J Nurminen; J Velhonoja; H Irjala; T Soukka; T Happonen; M Nyman; K Mattila; J Hirvonen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Elisabeth Appel; Christoph Thomas; Andrea Steuwe; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Olga R Brook; Joel Aissa; Jörg Hennenlotter; Gerald Antoch; Johannes Boos Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 3.039
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: Sweet Ping Ng; Carlos E Cardenas; Hesham Elhalawani; Courtney Pollard; Baher Elgohari; Penny Fang; Mohamed Meheissen; Nandita Guha-Thakurta; Houda Bahig; Jason M Johnson; Mona Kamal; Adam S Garden; Jay P Reddy; Shirley Y Su; Renata Ferrarotto; Steven J Frank; G Brandon Gunn; Amy C Moreno; David I Rosenthal; Clifton D Fuller; Jack Phan Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-04-29
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