Doris Dodig1, Slavica Kovačić1, Zrinka Matana Kaštelan1, Iva Žuža1, Filip Benić1, Jurković Slaven2,3, Damir Miletić1,4, Zoran Rumboldt4,5. 1. Radiology Department, Clinical Hospital Center Rijeka, Croatia. 2. Clinic for Radiotherapy and Oncology, Clinical Hospital Center Rijeka, Croatia. 3. Department of Medical Physics and Biophysics, University of Rijeka, Croatia. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Rijeka, Croatia. 5. Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Weighted average dual-energy computed tomography (DE-CT) reconstructions are considered a proxy of standard CT images of the brain, recommended for routine clinical use and used as a reference standard in DE-CT research. However, their image quality has not been assessed, which was the aim of our study. METHODS: Images from 81 consecutive patients who underwent both non-contrast single-energy (SE)-CT and DE-CT of the brain on the same scanner were retrospectively evaluated. Attenuation values (HU) and SD of grey matter/white matter (GM/WM) pairs, along with SD in the posterior fossa and subcalvarial region were measured. Four readers evaluated image noise, GM/WM contrast, posterior fossa and subcalvarial artefacts, as well as overall image quality. RESULTS: Weighted average DE-CT GM and WM HU were significantly lower and noise higher compared to SE-CT (GM HU 36.46 v. 41.82; WM HU 28.18 v. 29.94; GM SD 2.93 v. 2.49; and WM SD 3.16 v. 2.44, all p < 0.0001). After correcting the measured SE-CT noise for 37% higher acquisition dose, DE-CT GM noise became significantly lower (2.93 v. 3.11, p = 0.0121). Measured and dose corrected SE-CT GM/WM contrast-to-noise ratio was superior to weighted average DE-CT (3.42 and 2.74 v. 1.95, both p < 0.0001). Weighted average DE-CT had significantly less artifacts on qualitative analysis. CONCLUSION: Weighted average DE-CT images of the brain yield less artefacts at 37% dose reduction and lower noise at SE-CT equivalent dose. Dose-adjusted GM/WM contrast-to-noise ratio of weighted average DE-CT with 0.4 weighting factor remains inferior to SE-CT images.
PURPOSE: Weighted average dual-energy computed tomography (DE-CT) reconstructions are considered a proxy of standard CT images of the brain, recommended for routine clinical use and used as a reference standard in DE-CT research. However, their image quality has not been assessed, which was the aim of our study. METHODS: Images from 81 consecutive patients who underwent both non-contrast single-energy (SE)-CT and DE-CT of the brain on the same scanner were retrospectively evaluated. Attenuation values (HU) and SD of grey matter/white matter (GM/WM) pairs, along with SD in the posterior fossa and subcalvarial region were measured. Four readers evaluated image noise, GM/WM contrast, posterior fossa and subcalvarial artefacts, as well as overall image quality. RESULTS: Weighted average DE-CT GM and WM HU were significantly lower and noise higher compared to SE-CT (GM HU 36.46 v. 41.82; WM HU 28.18 v. 29.94; GM SD 2.93 v. 2.49; and WM SD 3.16 v. 2.44, all p < 0.0001). After correcting the measured SE-CT noise for 37% higher acquisition dose, DE-CT GM noise became significantly lower (2.93 v. 3.11, p = 0.0121). Measured and dose corrected SE-CT GM/WM contrast-to-noise ratio was superior to weighted average DE-CT (3.42 and 2.74 v. 1.95, both p < 0.0001). Weighted average DE-CT had significantly less artifacts on qualitative analysis. CONCLUSION: Weighted average DE-CT images of the brain yield less artefacts at 37% dose reduction and lower noise at SE-CT equivalent dose. Dose-adjusted GM/WM contrast-to-noise ratio of weighted average DE-CT with 0.4 weighting factor remains inferior to SE-CT images.
Authors: Mark E Mullins; Michael H Lev; Peter Bove; Cara E O'Reilly; Sanjay Saini; James T Rhea; James H Thrall; George J Hunter; Leena M Hamberg; R Gilberto Gonzalez Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Victor Neuhaus; Nuran Abdullayev; Nils Große Hokamp; Gregor Pahn; Christoph Kabbasch; Anastasios Mpotsaris; David Maintz; Jan Borggrefe Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: M P M Tijssen; P A M Hofman; A A R Stadler; W van Zwam; R de Graaf; R J van Oostenbrugge; E Klotz; J E Wildberger; A A Postma Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Malte N Bongers; Christoph Schabel; Bernhard Krauss; Ilias Tsiflikas; Dominik Ketelsen; Stefanie Mangold; Claus D Claussen; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christoph Thomas Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-12-21 Impact factor: 5.315