Objective and subjective comparison of virtual monoenergetic vs. polychromatic images in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Algorithms
Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal
/ diagnosis
Female
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Pancreas
/ diagnostic imaging
Pancreatic Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Radiography, Dual-Energy Scanned Projection
/ methods
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Virtual Reality
Multidetector computed tomography
Pancreatic neoplasms
Signal-to-noise ratio
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2019
Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
02
10
2018
accepted:
15
02
2019
revised:
15
01
2019
pubmed:
20
3
2019
medline:
27
8
2019
entrez:
20
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to assess the objective and subjective image characteristics of monoenergetic images (MEI[+]), using a noise-optimized algorithm at different kiloelectron volts (keV) compared to polyenergetic images (PEI), in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This retrospective, institutional review board-approved study included 45 patients (18 male, 27 female; mean age 66 years; range, 42-96 years) with PDAC who had undergone a dual-energy CT (DECT) of the abdomen for staging. One standard polyenergetic image (PEI) and five MEI(+) images in 10-keV intervals, ranging from 40 to 80 keV, were reconstructed. Line-density profile analysis, as well as the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the tumor, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the regular pancreas parenchyma and the tumor, and the CNR of the three main peripancreatic vessels, was calculated. For subjective quality assessment, two readers independently assessed the images using a 5-point Likert scale. Reader reliability was evaluated using an intraclass correlation coefficient. Line-density profile analysis revealed the largest gradient in attenuation between PDAC and regular tissue in MEI(+) at 40 keV. Low-keV MEI(+)reconstructions at 40 and 50 keV increased CNR and SNR compared to PEI (40 keV: CNR 46.8 vs. 7.5; SNR MEI(+) reconstructions at 40 keV and 50 keV provide better objective and subjective image quality compared to conventional PEI of DECT in patients with PDAC. • Low-keV MEI(+) reconstructions at 40 and 50 keV increase tumor-to-pancreas contrast compared to PEI. • Low-keV MEI(+) reconstructions improve objective and subjective image quality parameters compared to PEI. • Dual-energy post-processing might be a valuable tool in the diagnostic workup of patients with PDAC.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30888484
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06116-9
pii: 10.1007/s00330-019-06116-9
pmc: PMC6554239
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
3617-3625Subventions
Organisme : Oesterreichische Nationalbank
ID : 16886
Références
Eur Radiol. 2018 Aug;28(8):3484-3493
pubmed: 29352379
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017 Oct;42(10):2579-2586
pubmed: 28421243
Eur J Radiol. 2017 Oct;95:300-306
pubmed: 28987684
Eur Radiol. 2018 Oct;28(10):4379-4388
pubmed: 29654560
Invest Radiol. 2014 Sep;49(9):586-92
pubmed: 24710203
Abdom Imaging. 2015 Jun;40(5):1230-40
pubmed: 25331567
Eur Radiol. 2018 Aug;28(8):3393-3404
pubmed: 29460075
Eur Radiol. 2018 Aug;28(8):3405-3412
pubmed: 29460070
Eur Radiol. 2017 Aug;27(8):3408-3435
pubmed: 28093626
Eur Radiol. 2019 Aug;29(8):4207-4214
pubmed: 30338365
Eur J Radiol. 2013 Oct;82(10):e574-81
pubmed: 23763858
Br J Radiol. 2017 Dec;90(1080):20170411
pubmed: 28936888
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018 Feb;43(2):497-504
pubmed: 29138890
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2017 Jan;41(1):39-47
pubmed: 27560021
Oral Oncol. 2014 Mar;50(3):221-7
pubmed: 24373911
Radiology. 2011 Jun;259(3):757-66
pubmed: 21436084
Radiology. 2016 Jul;280(1):78-87
pubmed: 26824712
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019 Mar;44(3):1019-1026
pubmed: 30415309
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Aug 1;80(5):1383-90
pubmed: 20708856
Eur Radiol. 2019 Jun;29(6):2837-2847
pubmed: 30377793
Eur Radiol. 2016 Jun;26(6):1871-8
pubmed: 26373752
Eur J Radiol. 2015 Nov;84(11):2052-8
pubmed: 26220917
Invest Radiol. 2009 Jan;44(1):1-6
pubmed: 19060790
Eur Radiol. 2016 Jun;26(6):1863-70
pubmed: 26334508