Sergio Grosu1,2, Rafael Wiemker3, Chansik An4, Markus M Obmann4,5, Eddy Wong6, Judy Yee7, Benjamin M Yeh4. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 513 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. sergio.grosu@med.uni-muenchen.de. 2. Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. sergio.grosu@med.uni-muenchen.de. 3. Philips Research Laboratories Hamburg, Röntgenstraße 24, 22335, Hamburg, Germany. 4. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 513 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. 5. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Imaging, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, CH - 4051, Basel, Switzerland. 6. CT/AMI Clinical Science, Philips Healthcare, 100 Park Avenue, Orange Village, OH, 44122, USA. 7. Department of Radiology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 111 E 210th Street, Bronx, NY, 10467-2401, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of conventional versus spectral-based electronic stool cleansing for iodine-tagged CT colonography (CTC) using a dual-layer spectral detector scanner. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated iodine contrast stool-tagged CTC scans of 30 consecutive patients (mean age: 69 ± 8 years) undergoing colorectal cancer screening obtained on a dual-layer spectral detector CT scanner. One reader identified locations of electronic cleansing artifacts (n = 229) on conventional and spectral cleansed images. Three additional independent readers evaluated these locations using a conventional cleansing algorithm (Intellispace Portal) and two experimental spectral cleansing algorithms (i.e., fully transparent and translucent tagged stool). For each cleansed image set, readers recorded the severity of over- and under-cleansing artifacts on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = none to 4 = severe) and readability compared to uncleansed images. Wilcoxon's signed-rank tests were used to assess artifact severity, type, and readability (worse, unchanged, or better). RESULTS: Compared with conventional cleansing (66% score ≥ 2), the severity of overall cleansing artifacts was lower in transparent (60% score ≥ 2, p = 0.011) and translucent (50% score ≥ 2, p < 0.001) spectral cleansing. Under-cleansing artifact severity was lower in transparent (49% score ≥ 2, p < 0.001) and translucent (39% score ≥ 2, p < 0.001) spectral cleansing compared with conventional cleansing (60% score ≥ 2). Over-cleansing artifact severity was worse in transparent (17% score ≥ 2, p < 0.001) and translucent (14% score ≥ 2, p = 0.023) spectral cleansing compared with conventional cleansing (9% score ≥ 2). Overall readability was significantly improved in transparent (p < 0.001) and translucent (p < 0.001) spectral cleansing compared with conventional cleansing. CONCLUSIONS: Spectral cleansing provided more robust electronic stool cleansing of iodine-tagged stool at CTC than conventional cleansing. KEY POINTS: • Spectral-based electronic cleansing of tagged stool at CT colonography provides higher quality images with less perception of artifacts than does conventional cleansing. • Spectral-based electronic cleansing could potentially advance minimally cathartic approach for CT colonography. Further clinical trials are warranted.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of conventional versus spectral-based electronic stool cleansing for iodine-tagged CT colonography (CTC) using a dual-layer spectral detector scanner. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated iodine contrast stool-tagged CTC scans of 30 consecutive patients (mean age: 69 ± 8 years) undergoing colorectal cancer screening obtained on a dual-layer spectral detector CT scanner. One reader identified locations of electronic cleansing artifacts (n = 229) on conventional and spectral cleansed images. Three additional independent readers evaluated these locations using a conventional cleansing algorithm (Intellispace Portal) and two experimental spectral cleansing algorithms (i.e., fully transparent and translucent tagged stool). For each cleansed image set, readers recorded the severity of over- and under-cleansing artifacts on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = none to 4 = severe) and readability compared to uncleansed images. Wilcoxon's signed-rank tests were used to assess artifact severity, type, and readability (worse, unchanged, or better). RESULTS: Compared with conventional cleansing (66% score ≥ 2), the severity of overall cleansing artifacts was lower in transparent (60% score ≥ 2, p = 0.011) and translucent (50% score ≥ 2, p < 0.001) spectral cleansing. Under-cleansing artifact severity was lower in transparent (49% score ≥ 2, p < 0.001) and translucent (39% score ≥ 2, p < 0.001) spectral cleansing compared with conventional cleansing (60% score ≥ 2). Over-cleansing artifact severity was worse in transparent (17% score ≥ 2, p < 0.001) and translucent (14% score ≥ 2, p = 0.023) spectral cleansing compared with conventional cleansing (9% score ≥ 2). Overall readability was significantly improved in transparent (p < 0.001) and translucent (p < 0.001) spectral cleansing compared with conventional cleansing. CONCLUSIONS: Spectral cleansing provided more robust electronic stool cleansing of iodine-tagged stool at CTC than conventional cleansing. KEY POINTS: • Spectral-based electronic cleansing of tagged stool at CT colonography provides higher quality images with less perception of artifacts than does conventional cleansing. • Spectral-based electronic cleansing could potentially advance minimally cathartic approach for CT colonography. Further clinical trials are warranted.