Simon Lennartz1,2,3, Kai Roman Laukamp4,5,6, Yasmeen Tandon7,1,8, Michelle Jordan9,7, Nils Große Hokamp9,7,1, David Zopfs1, Lenhard Pennig1, Markus Obmann10, Robert C Gilkeson9,7, Karin A Herrmann7, Nikhil Ramaiya9,7,3, Amit Gupta9,7. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University Cologne, Kerpener Straße, 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. 2. Else Kröner Forschungskolleg Clonal Evolution in Cancer, University Hospital Cologne, Weyertal 115b, 50931, Cologne, Germany. 3. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, White 270, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, 11000 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA. kai.laukamp@uk-koeln.de. 5. Department of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. kai.laukamp@uk-koeln.de. 6. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University Cologne, Kerpener Straße, 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. kai.laukamp@uk-koeln.de. 7. Department of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. 8. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. 9. Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, 11000 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA. 10. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate vessel assessment in virtual monoenergetic images (VMI40keV) and virtual-non-contrast images (VNC) derived from venous phase spectral detector computed tomography (SDCT) acquisitions in comparison to arterial phase and true non-contrast (TNC) images. METHODS: Triphasic abdominal SDCT was performed in 25 patients including TNC, arterial and venous phase. VMI40keV and VNC were reconstructed from the venous phase and compared to conventional arterial-phase images (CIart), TNC and conventional venous-phase images (CIven). Vessel contrast and virtual contrast removal were analyzed with region-of-interest-based measurements and in a qualitative assessment. RESULTS: Quantitative analysis revealed no significant attenuation differences between TNC and VNC in arterial vessels (p-range 0.07-0.47) except for the renal artery (p = 0.011). For venous vessels, significant differences between TNC and VNC were found for all veins (p < 0.001) except the inferior vena cava (p = 0.26), yet these differences remained within a 10 HU range in most patients. No significant attenuation differences were found between CIart/VMI40keV in arterial vessels (p-range 0.06-0.86). Contrast-to-noise ratio provided by VMI40keV and CIart was equivalent for all arterial vessels assessed (p-range 0.14-0.91). Qualitatively, VMI40keV showed similar enhancement of abdominal and pelvic arteries as CIart and VNC were rated comparable to TNC. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that VNC and VMI40keV derived from single venous-phase SDCT offer comparable assessment of major abdominal vessels as provided by routine triphasic examinations, if no dynamic contrast information is required.
PURPOSE: To evaluate vessel assessment in virtual monoenergetic images (VMI40keV) and virtual-non-contrast images (VNC) derived from venous phase spectral detector computed tomography (SDCT) acquisitions in comparison to arterial phase and true non-contrast (TNC) images. METHODS: Triphasic abdominal SDCT was performed in 25 patients including TNC, arterial and venous phase. VMI40keV and VNC were reconstructed from the venous phase and compared to conventional arterial-phase images (CIart), TNC and conventional venous-phase images (CIven). Vessel contrast and virtual contrast removal were analyzed with region-of-interest-based measurements and in a qualitative assessment. RESULTS: Quantitative analysis revealed no significant attenuation differences between TNC and VNC in arterial vessels (p-range 0.07-0.47) except for the renal artery (p = 0.011). For venous vessels, significant differences between TNC and VNC were found for all veins (p < 0.001) except the inferior vena cava (p = 0.26), yet these differences remained within a 10 HU range in most patients. No significant attenuation differences were found between CIart/VMI40keV in arterial vessels (p-range 0.06-0.86). Contrast-to-noise ratio provided by VMI40keV and CIart was equivalent for all arterial vessels assessed (p-range 0.14-0.91). Qualitatively, VMI40keV showed similar enhancement of abdominal and pelvic arteries as CIart and VNC were rated comparable to TNC. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that VNC and VMI40keV derived from single venous-phase SDCT offer comparable assessment of major abdominal vessels as provided by routine triphasic examinations, if no dynamic contrast information is required.
Authors: Markus M Obmann; Vanessa Kelsch; Aurelio Cosentino; Verena Hofmann; Daniel T Boll; Matthias R Benz Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Kai Roman Laukamp; Vivian Ho; Verena Carola Obmann; Karin Herrmann; Amit Gupta; Jan Borggrefe; Simon Lennartz; Nils Große Hokamp; Nikhil Ramaiya Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: David C Rotzinger; Salim A Si-Mohamed; Nadav Shapira; Philippe C Douek; Reto A Meuli; Loïc Boussel Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-07-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: David C Rotzinger; Vincent Dunet; Vesna Ilic; Olivier W Hugli; Reto A Meuli; Sabine Schmidt Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 5.315