Simon Lennartz1,2, Anushri Parakh1, Jinjin Cao1, David Zopfs2, Nils Große Hokamp2, Avinash Kambadakone3. 1. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, White 270, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 2. Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. 3. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, White 270, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. akambadakone@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate inter-scan and inter-scanner variation of iodine concentration (IC) and attenuation in virtual monoenergetic images at 65 keV (HU65keV) in patients with repeated abdominal examinations on dual-source (dsDECT), rapid kV switching (rsDECT), and dual-layer detector DECT (dlDECT). METHODS: We retrospectively included 131 patients who underwent two abdominal DECT examinations on the same scanner (dsDECT: n = 46, rsDECT: n = 45, dlDECT: n = 40). IC and HU65keV were measured by placing regions of interest in the liver, spleen, kidneys, aorta, portal vein, and inferior vena cava. Overall IC and HU65keV for each scanner, their inter-scan differences and proportional variation were calculated and compared between scanner types. RESULTS: The three scanner-specific cohorts showed similar weight, body diameter, age, sex, and contrast media injection parameters as well as inter-scan differences hereof (p range: 0.23-0.99). Absolute inter-scan differences of HU65keV and IC were comparable between scanners (p range: 0.08-1.0). Overall inter-scan variation was significantly higher in IC than HU65keV (p < 0.05). For the liver, rsDECT showed significantly lower inter-scan variation of IC compared to dsDECT/dlDECT (p = 0.005/0.01), while for the spleen, this difference was only significant compared to dsDECT (p = 0.015). Normalizing IC of the liver to the portal vein and of the spleen to the aorta did not significantly reduce inter-scan variation (p = 0.97 and 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: Iodine measurements across different DECT scanners show inter-scan variation which is higher compared to variation of attenuation values. Inter-scanner differences in longitudinal variation and overall iodine concentration depend on the scanner pairs and organs assessed and should be acknowledged in clinical and scientific DECT applications. KEY POINTS: • All scanner types showed comparable inter-scan variation of attenuation, while for iodine, the rapid kV switching DECT showed lower variability in the liver and spleen. • Iodine concentration showed higher inter-scan variation than attenuation measurements; normalization to vessels did not significantly improve inter-scan reproducibility of iodine concentration in parenchymal organs. • Differences between the three scanner types regarding overall iodine concentration and attenuation obtained from both timepoints were within the range of average intra-patient, inter-scan differences for most assessed organs and vessels.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate inter-scan and inter-scanner variation of iodine concentration (IC) and attenuation in virtual monoenergetic images at 65 keV (HU65keV) in patients with repeated abdominal examinations on dual-source (dsDECT), rapid kV switching (rsDECT), and dual-layer detector DECT (dlDECT). METHODS: We retrospectively included 131 patients who underwent two abdominal DECT examinations on the same scanner (dsDECT: n = 46, rsDECT: n = 45, dlDECT: n = 40). IC and HU65keV were measured by placing regions of interest in the liver, spleen, kidneys, aorta, portal vein, and inferior vena cava. Overall IC and HU65keV for each scanner, their inter-scan differences and proportional variation were calculated and compared between scanner types. RESULTS: The three scanner-specific cohorts showed similar weight, body diameter, age, sex, and contrast media injection parameters as well as inter-scan differences hereof (p range: 0.23-0.99). Absolute inter-scan differences of HU65keV and IC were comparable between scanners (p range: 0.08-1.0). Overall inter-scan variation was significantly higher in IC than HU65keV (p < 0.05). For the liver, rsDECT showed significantly lower inter-scan variation of IC compared to dsDECT/dlDECT (p = 0.005/0.01), while for the spleen, this difference was only significant compared to dsDECT (p = 0.015). Normalizing IC of the liver to the portal vein and of the spleen to the aorta did not significantly reduce inter-scan variation (p = 0.97 and 0.50). CONCLUSIONS:Iodine measurements across different DECT scanners show inter-scan variation which is higher compared to variation of attenuation values. Inter-scanner differences in longitudinal variation and overall iodine concentration depend on the scanner pairs and organs assessed and should be acknowledged in clinical and scientific DECT applications. KEY POINTS: • All scanner types showed comparable inter-scan variation of attenuation, while for iodine, the rapid kV switching DECT showed lower variability in the liver and spleen. • Iodine concentration showed higher inter-scan variation than attenuation measurements; normalization to vessels did not significantly improve inter-scan reproducibility of iodine concentration in parenchymal organs. • Differences between the three scanner types regarding overall iodine concentration and attenuation obtained from both timepoints were within the range of average intra-patient, inter-scan differences for most assessed organs and vessels.
Entities:
Keywords:
Contrast media; Iodine; Reproducibility of results; Tomography, X-ray computed
Authors: Paul Apfaltrer; Mathias Meyer; Caroline Meier; Thomas Henzler; John M Barraza; Dietmar J Dinter; Peter Hohenberger; U Joseph Schoepf; Stefan O Schoenberg; Christian Fink Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Andreas P Sauter; Felix K Kopp; Daniela Münzel; Julia Dangelmaier; Martin Renz; Bernhard Renger; Rickmer Braren; Alexander A Fingerle; Ernst J Rummeny; Peter B Noël Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Daniele Marin; Drew Davis; Kingshuk Roy Choudhury; Bhavik Patel; Rajan T Gupta; Achille Mileto; Rendon C Nelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-03-28 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Simon Lennartz; Markus Le Blanc; David Zopfs; Nils Große Hokamp; Nuran Abdullayev; Kai Roman Laukamp; Stefan Haneder; Jan Borggrefe; David Maintz; Thorsten Persigehl Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Wolfgang M Thaiss; Ulrike Haberland; Sascha Kaufmann; Daniel Spira; Christoph Thomas; Konstantin Nikolaou; Marius Horger; Alexander W Sauter Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Megan C Jacobsen; Erik N K Cressman; Eric P Tamm; Dodge L Baluya; Xinhui Duan; Dianna D Cody; Dawid Schellingerhout; Rick R Layman Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-06-25 Impact factor: 29.146
Authors: Gert Jan Pelgrim; Robbert W van Hamersvelt; Martin J Willemink; Bernhard T Schmidt; Thomas Flohr; Arnold Schilham; Julien Milles; Matthijs Oudkerk; Tim Leiner; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 5.315