Giovanni Foti1, Matteo Catania2, Simone Caia2, Luigi Romano2, Alberto Beltramello2, Claudio Zorzi3, Giovanni Carbognin2. 1. Department of Radiology, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Hospital, Via Don A. Sempreboni 10, 37024, Negrar, VR, Italy. gfoti81@yahoo.it. 2. Department of Radiology, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Hospital, Via Don A. Sempreboni 10, 37024, Negrar, VR, Italy. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Hospital, Negrar, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) to identify bone marrow edema (BME) of the ankle. METHODS: This prospective institutional review board approved study included 40 consecutive patients (29 males and 11 females; mean age of 32.3 years) studied with DECT (80 kV and tin filter 150 kV) and MRI within 10 days. DECT data were post-processed for generating non-calcium images of the ankle. Two radiologists evaluated the presence of BME on color-coded maps. Diagnostic accuracy values for diagnosing BME were calculated for DECT maps (qualitative assessment) and for CT numbers (quantitative assessment) by using receiver operator curves and area under the curve (AUC), using MRI as the gold standard. Interobserver and intraobserver agreements were calculated with k-statistics. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: DECT depicted BME in 23/25 patients (92.0%). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV, and accuracy achieved by evaluating the DECT images were 92.0, 86.6, 92.0, 84.6, and 90.0%, for reader 1 and 88.0, 86.6, 91.6, 78.6, and 87.5, for reader 2, respectively. The interobserver and intraobsever agreements were near perfect (k = 0.87 and k = 0.83, respectively). DECT numbers were significantly different between positive (mean - 12.6 ± 29.6 HU) and negative cases (mean - 64.2 ± 34.5 HU) with a p value < 0.001. By using - 20HU cutoff to identify BME (AUC of 0.896.), the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV, and accuracy of the quantitative analysis were 88.0, 92.6, 95.7, 92.6, and 87.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: DECT represents an accurate imaging tool for demonstration of BME of the ankle when compared to MRI.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) to identify bone marrow edema (BME) of the ankle. METHODS: This prospective institutional review board approved study included 40 consecutive patients (29 males and 11 females; mean age of 32.3 years) studied with DECT (80 kV and tin filter 150 kV) and MRI within 10 days. DECT data were post-processed for generating non-calcium images of the ankle. Two radiologists evaluated the presence of BME on color-coded maps. Diagnostic accuracy values for diagnosing BME were calculated for DECT maps (qualitative assessment) and for CT numbers (quantitative assessment) by using receiver operator curves and area under the curve (AUC), using MRI as the gold standard. Interobserver and intraobserver agreements were calculated with k-statistics. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: DECT depicted BME in 23/25 patients (92.0%). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV, and accuracy achieved by evaluating the DECT images were 92.0, 86.6, 92.0, 84.6, and 90.0%, for reader 1 and 88.0, 86.6, 91.6, 78.6, and 87.5, for reader 2, respectively. The interobserver and intraobsever agreements were near perfect (k = 0.87 and k = 0.83, respectively). DECT numbers were significantly different between positive (mean - 12.6 ± 29.6 HU) and negative cases (mean - 64.2 ± 34.5 HU) with a p value < 0.001. By using - 20HU cutoff to identify BME (AUC of 0.896.), the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV, and accuracy of the quantitative analysis were 88.0, 92.6, 95.7, 92.6, and 87.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: DECT represents an accurate imaging tool for demonstration of BME of the ankle when compared to MRI.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ankle; Bone marrow; Dual-energy computed tomography; Magnetic resonance imaging; Sensitivity
Authors: Yoshiharu Shimozono; Max Coale; Youichi Yasui; Amanda O'Halloran; Timothy W Deyer; John G Kennedy Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Victor Neuhaus; Simon Lennartz; Nuran Abdullayev; Nils Große Hokamp; Nadav Shapira; Galit Kafri; Jasmin A Holz; Barbara Krug; Martin Hellmich; David Maintz; Jan Borggrefe Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2018-06-13 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Hubert Hörterer; Sebastian Felix Baumbach; Johanne Gregersen; Stefanie Kriegelstein; Oliver Gottschalk; Ulrike Szeimies; Markus Walther Journal: Foot Ankle Int Date: 2018-06-04 Impact factor: 2.827
Authors: Giovanni Foti; William Mantovani; Niccolò Faccioli; Giacomo Crivellari; Luigi Romano; Claudio Zorzi; Giovanni Carbognin Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2020-08-25 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Majid Maybody; Mohamed M Soliman; Sinchun Hwang; Adrian Gonzalez-Aguirre; Ernesto G Santos Martin; Elena Kaye; Meier Hsu; Chaya Moskowitz; John H Healey; Nicola Fabbri Journal: SN Compr Clin Med Date: 2020-09-14
Authors: Flavia Cobianchi Bellisari; Luigi De Marino; Francesco Arrigoni; Silvia Mariani; Federico Bruno; Pierpaolo Palumbo; Camilla De Cataldo; Ferruccio Sgalambro; Nadia Catallo; Luigi Zugaro; Ernesto Di Cesare; Alessandra Splendiani; Carlo Masciocchi; Andrea Giovagnoni; Antonio Barile Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Tommaso D'Angelo; Moritz H Albrecht; Danilo Caudo; Silvio Mazziotti; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann; Simon Martin; Ibrahim Yel; Giorgio Ascenti; Vitali Koch; Giuseppe Cicero; Alfredo Blandino; Christian Booz Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2021-09-03