S Jamali1, N Michoux2, E Coche2, C A Dragean2. 1. Department of Radiology, Cliniques universitaires Saint Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200 Woluwé Saint Lambert, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: sanaa.jamali@uclouvain.be. 2. Department of Radiology, Cliniques universitaires Saint Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200 Woluwé Saint Lambert, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare attenuation measurements and image quality of virtual unenhanced phase (VUP) images with those of conventional true unenhanced phase (TUP) images on spectral dual energy computed tomography (DECT) with dual layer detector on abdominal tissues and to assess potential reduction in radiation dose. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A total of 295 patients (185 men, 110 women; mean age 61±17.6 [SD] years [range: 17-95 years]) who had undergone abdominal or thoraco-abdominal CT with pre- and post-contrast imaging (portal phase) with spectral DECT with dual layer detector were retrospectively analyzed. VUP images based on portal-venous phase DECT acquisition were generated. Regions of interest were defined in abdominal tissues (liver, spleen, kidney, muscle and fat) by two independent readers. Inter-technique agreement (VUP images vs. TUP images) on attenuation measurements was assessed. Signal-to noise ratio (SNR) and image quality of TUP and VUP images were compared. The radiation dose delivered to patients was compared with the radiation dose of protocols without TUP images. RESULTS: A total of 9880 ROIs were drawn in the abdominal tissues. The difference in mean attenuation values between TUP and VUP images was less than 15 HU in 98.3% and less than 10 HU in 92.3% of all measurements. VUP images overestimated attenuation in fat comparatively to TUP images. Image quality was evaluated as good or excellent in 77% (37/48) of TUP images and 54% (26/48) of VUP images. Using VUP images instead of TUP images could decrease the radiation dose by 32%. CONCLUSION: VUP images demonstrate good agreement with TUP images in different abdominals tissues and can be obtained with similar image quality as TUP. VUP images appear as an alternative to TUP images, resulting in reduction of radiation dose delivered to the patient.
PURPOSE: To compare attenuation measurements and image quality of virtual unenhanced phase (VUP) images with those of conventional true unenhanced phase (TUP) images on spectral dual energy computed tomography (DECT) with dual layer detector on abdominal tissues and to assess potential reduction in radiation dose. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A total of 295 patients (185 men, 110 women; mean age 61±17.6 [SD] years [range: 17-95 years]) who had undergone abdominal or thoraco-abdominal CT with pre- and post-contrast imaging (portal phase) with spectral DECT with dual layer detector were retrospectively analyzed. VUP images based on portal-venous phase DECT acquisition were generated. Regions of interest were defined in abdominal tissues (liver, spleen, kidney, muscle and fat) by two independent readers. Inter-technique agreement (VUP images vs. TUP images) on attenuation measurements was assessed. Signal-to noise ratio (SNR) and image quality of TUP and VUP images were compared. The radiation dose delivered to patients was compared with the radiation dose of protocols without TUP images. RESULTS: A total of 9880 ROIs were drawn in the abdominal tissues. The difference in mean attenuation values between TUP and VUP images was less than 15 HU in 98.3% and less than 10 HU in 92.3% of all measurements. VUP images overestimated attenuation in fat comparatively to TUP images. Image quality was evaluated as good or excellent in 77% (37/48) of TUP images and 54% (26/48) of VUP images. Using VUP images instead of TUP images could decrease the radiation dose by 32%. CONCLUSION: VUP images demonstrate good agreement with TUP images in different abdominals tissues and can be obtained with similar image quality as TUP. VUP images appear as an alternative to TUP images, resulting in reduction of radiation dose delivered to the patient.
Authors: David Zopfs; Simon Lennartz; Charlotte Zaeske; Martin Merkt; Kai Roman Laukamp; Robert Peter Reimer; David Maintz; Jan Borggrefe; Nils Grosse Hokamp Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Jeong Won Lee; Sung Yong Kim; Hyun Ju Lee; Sun Wook Han; Jong Eun Lee; Sang Mi Lee Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: I Molwitz; M Leiderer; R McDonough; R Fischer; A-K Ozga; C Ozden; E Tahir; D Koehler; G Adam; J Yamamura Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 5.315