Kanako Okada1, Megumi Matsuda2, Takaharu Tsuda2, Teruhito Kido2, Akihiro Murata2, Hikaru Nishiyama2, Kanako Nishiyama3, Haruna Yamasawa3, Yoshiaki Kamei3, Mie Kurata4, Mana Fukushima5, Riko Kitazawa5, Teruhito Mochizuki2,6. 1. Department of Radiology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Shitsukawa, Toon, Ehime, 791-0295, Japan. kanasyabu@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Shitsukawa, Toon, Ehime, 791-0295, Japan. 3. Department of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Breast Surgery, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Shitsukawa, Toon, Ehime, 791-0295, Japan. 4. Department of Pathology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine and Proteo-Science Center, Shitsukawa, Toon, Ehime, 791-0295, Japan. 5. Department of Molecular Pathology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Shitsukawa, Toon, Ehime, 791-0295, Japan. 6. Department of Radiology, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, 19c1, Bol'shaya Pirogovskaya Ulitsa, Moscow, 119146, Russia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the image quality and lesion visibility of virtual monoenergetic images (VMIs) reconstructed using a new monoenergetic reconstruction algorithm (nMERA) for evaluation of breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients with 46 breast cancers who underwent 4-phasic breast contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) using dual-energy CT (DECT) were enrolled. We selected the peak enhancement phase of the lesion in each patient. The selected phase images were generated by 120-kVp-equivalent linear blended (M120) and monoenergetic reconstructions from 40 to 80 keV using the standard reconstruction algorithm (sMERA: 40, 50, 60, 70, 80) and nMERA (40 +, 50 +, 60 +, 70 +, 80 +). The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was calculated and objectively analyzed. Two independent readers subjectively scored tumor visibility and image quality each on a 5-point scale. RESULTS: The CNR at 40 + and tumor visibility scores at 40 + and 50 + were significantly higher than those on M120. The CNR at 50 + was not significantly different from that on M120. However, the overall image quality score at 40 + was significantly lower than that at 50 + and on M120 (40 + vs M120, P < 0.0001 and 40 + vs 50 +, P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: VMI reconstructed with nMERA at 50 keV is preferable for evaluation of patients with breast cancer.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the image quality and lesion visibility of virtual monoenergetic images (VMIs) reconstructed using a new monoenergetic reconstruction algorithm (nMERA) for evaluation of breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients with 46 breast cancers who underwent 4-phasic breast contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) using dual-energy CT (DECT) were enrolled. We selected the peak enhancement phase of the lesion in each patient. The selected phase images were generated by 120-kVp-equivalent linear blended (M120) and monoenergetic reconstructions from 40 to 80 keV using the standard reconstruction algorithm (sMERA: 40, 50, 60, 70, 80) and nMERA (40 +, 50 +, 60 +, 70 +, 80 +). The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was calculated and objectively analyzed. Two independent readers subjectively scored tumor visibility and image quality each on a 5-point scale. RESULTS: The CNR at 40 + and tumor visibility scores at 40 + and 50 + were significantly higher than those on M120. The CNR at 50 + was not significantly different from that on M120. However, the overall image quality score at 40 + was significantly lower than that at 50 + and on M120 (40 + vs M120, P < 0.0001 and 40 + vs 50 +, P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: VMI reconstructed with nMERA at 50 keV is preferable for evaluation of patients with breast cancer.
Authors: Sebastian Leschka; Paul Stolzmann; Stephan Baumüller; Hans Scheffel; Lotus Desbiolles; Bernhard Schmid; Borut Marincek; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Anno Graser; Christoph R Becker; Michael Staehler; Dirk A Clevert; Michael Macari; Niko Arndt; Konstantin Nikolaou; Wieland Sommer; Christian Stief; Maximilian F Reiser; Thorsten R C Johnson Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Sonja Sudarski; Paul Apfaltrer; John W Nance; Mathias Meyer; Christian Fink; Peter Hohenberger; Christianne Leidecker; Stefan O Schoenberg; Thomas Henzler Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Mareen Kraus; Jakob Weiss; Nadja Selo; Thomas Flohr; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Fabian Bamberg; Konstantin Nikolaou; Ahmed E Othman Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Yongxia Zhang; Lei Song; Han Zhang; Fengjie Liu; Guo Hao; Jing Liu; Haizhu Xie; Hao Shi Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 1.671