How accurate and precise are CT based measurements of iodine concentration? A comparison of the minimum detectable concentration difference among single source and dual source dual energy CT in a phantom study.


Journal

European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Apr 2019
Historique:
received: 20 06 2018
accepted: 28 08 2018
revised: 09 08 2018
pubmed: 3 10 2018
medline: 14 5 2019
entrez: 3 10 2018
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To assess the impact of scan- and patient-related factors on the error and the minimum detectable difference in iodine concentration among different generations of single-source (SS) fast kV-switching and dual-source (DS) dual-energy CT (DECT). Lesions having eight different iodine concentrations (0.2-4 mgI/mL) were emulated in a 3D-printed phantom of medium and large size. Each combination of concentration and size was scanned in dual-energy mode on four different SS and DS DECTs. Radiation doses were 7 and 10 mGy (medium size) and 10, 13, and 16 mGy (large size). Iodine maps were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and vendor-specific iterative reconstruction algorithms (IRs). Absolute error of iodine quantification (E) was measured. Multivariate regression models determined the influence of CT scanner, iodine concentration, phantom size, radiation dose, and reconstruction algorithm on E. The minimum detectable difference in iodine concentration (IC The error was significantly lower in current than in previous DECT generations (p < 0.001). For all CT scanner conditions, the error was significantly higher with increasing phantom size and decreasing radiation dose (p < 0.001). Iodine concentration only significantly affected the error for SS DECT (p < 0.001). IC Patient- and scan-related factors have a significant impact on the error and minimum detectable difference in iodine concentration within and among SS fast kV-switching and DS DECT. • Patient- and scan-related factors have a significant impact on the error and minimum detectable difference in dual-energy CT-based iodine quantification. • Third-generation DECTs outperformed second-generation scanners for both single-source and dual-source dual-energy CT. • The minimum intra- and inter-conditional detectable difference in iodine concentration ranged from 0.4 to 1.5 mg iodine/mL.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30276672
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5736-0
pii: 10.1007/s00330-018-5736-0
doi:

Substances chimiques

Iodine 9679TC07X4

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

2069-2078

Références

Eur Radiol. 2017 Jun;27(6):2532-2537
pubmed: 27678131
Eur Radiol. 2016 Sep;26(9):3199-207
pubmed: 26699372
Invest Radiol. 2018 Jun;53(6):321-327
pubmed: 29329150
Eur J Radiol. 2013 Feb;82(2):327-34
pubmed: 23246016
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 May;202(5):W466-74
pubmed: 24758682
Eur J Radiol. 2018 Aug;105:20-24
pubmed: 30017280
Eur Radiol. 2018 Dec;28(12):5241-5249
pubmed: 29869176
Invest Radiol. 2018 Mar;53(3):173-178
pubmed: 28990974
Eur J Radiol. 2017 Nov;96:109-114
pubmed: 29103468
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Dec;197(6):W1076-82
pubmed: 22109322
Eur Radiol. 2016 Aug;26(8):2828-36
pubmed: 26563350
Eur Radiol. 2016 Sep;26(9):3162-70
pubmed: 26638163
Eur Radiol. 2013 Aug;23(8):2288-95
pubmed: 23479222
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Sep;95(39):e4816
pubmed: 27684811
Invest Radiol. 2012 Nov;47(11):656-61
pubmed: 22996313
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Jun;196(6):W693-700
pubmed: 21606256
Invest Radiol. 2016 Aug;51(8):491-8
pubmed: 26895193
Radiology. 2014 Dec;273(3):813-20
pubmed: 25162309
Br J Radiol. 2013 Sep;86(1029):20130143
pubmed: 23884759
Med Phys. 2011 Mar;38(3):1178-88
pubmed: 21520830
Eur J Radiol. 2018 Aug;105:255-260
pubmed: 30017291
Radiology. 2017 Sep;284(3):737-747
pubmed: 28353408
Eur Radiol. 2018 Feb;28(2):760-769
pubmed: 28835993
Invest Radiol. 2010 Jul;45(7):399-405
pubmed: 20498609
Radiology. 2018 Apr;287(1):224-234
pubmed: 29185902
Eur Radiol. 2014 Feb;24(2):512-8
pubmed: 24141716
Med Phys. 2015 Jul;42(7):4349-66
pubmed: 26133632
Eur Radiol. 2017 Sep;27(9):3904-3912
pubmed: 28168368
Eur J Radiol. 2018 May;102:83-88
pubmed: 29685549

Auteurs

André Euler (A)

Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, 2301 Erwin Road, Box 3808, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. and.euler@gmail.com.

Justin Solomon (J)

Carl E. Ravin Advanced Imaging Laboratories, Durham, NC, USA.

Maciej A Mazurowski (MA)

Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, 2301 Erwin Road, Box 3808, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.

Ehsan Samei (E)

Carl E. Ravin Advanced Imaging Laboratories, Durham, NC, USA.

Rendon C Nelson (RC)

Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, 2301 Erwin Road, Box 3808, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH