Virtual monochromatic spectral imaging versus linearly blended dual-energy and single-energy imaging during CT-guided biopsy needle positioning: Optimization of keV settings and impact on image quality.
Algorithms
Animals
Artifacts
Biopsy, Needle
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Image-Guided Biopsy
Liver
/ diagnostic imaging
Observer Variation
Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Radiography, Dual-Energy Scanned Projection
Signal-To-Noise Ratio
Swine
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Vena Cava, Inferior
/ diagnostic imaging
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
04
09
2019
accepted:
17
01
2020
entrez:
11
2
2020
pubmed:
11
2
2020
medline:
7
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To compare image quality and metal artifact reduction between virtual monochromatic spectral imaging (VMSI), linearly blended dual-energy (DE) and single-energy (SE) images, each with and without dedicated iterative metal artifact reduction (iMAR) for CT-guided biopsy. A biopsy trocar was positioned in the liver of six pigs. DE (Sn140/100kVp) and SE (120kVp/200mAs) acquisitions were performed with equivalent dose. From dual-energy datasets DE Q30-3 images and VMSI between 40-180 keV in steps of 20 keV were generated. From SE datasets I30-3 images were reconstructed. All images were reconstructed with and without iMAR. Objective image quality was analyzed applying density measurements at standardized positions (e.g. trocar tip and liver parenchyma adjacent to the trocar tip) and semi-automated threshold based segmentation. Subjective image quality was performed using semi-quantitative scores. Analyses were performed by two observers. At the trocar tip quantitative image analysis revealed significant difference in CT numbers between reconstructions with iMAR compared to reconstructions without iMAR for VMSI at lower keV levels (80 and 100 keV; p = 0.03) and DE (p = 0.03). For liver parenchyma CT numbers were significantly higher in VMSI at high keV compared to low keV (p≤0.01). VMSI at high keV also showed higher CT numbers compared to DE and SE images, though not the level of statistical significance. The best signal-to-noise ratio for VMSI was at 80 keV and comparable to DE and SE. Noise was lowest at 80 keV and lower than in DE and SE. Subjective image quality was best with VMSI at 80 keV regardless of the application of iMAR. iMAR significantly improved image quality at levels of 140 keV and 160 keV. Interreader-agreement was good for quantitative and qualitative analysis. iMAR improved image quality in all settings. VMSI with iMAR provided metal artifact reduction and better image quality at 80 keV and thus could improve the accurate positioning in CT-guided needle biopsy. In comparison, DE imaging did not improve image quality compared to SE.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32040496
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228578
pii: PONE-D-19-24876
pmc: PMC7010258
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0228578Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Rofo. 1999 Jul;171(1):44-8
pubmed: 10464504
Eur Radiol. 2011 Jul;21(7):1424-9
pubmed: 21249370
Med Phys. 2012 Apr;39(4):1904-16
pubmed: 22482612
Eur Radiol. 2013 Oct;23(10):2687-94
pubmed: 23686292
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2007 Sep-Oct;30(5):928-35
pubmed: 17546404
Sao Paulo Med J. 2006 Jan 5;124(1):10-4
pubmed: 16612456
Radiographics. 2013 Mar-Apr;33(2):573-83
pubmed: 23479714
Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2010 May 22;7622:762225-762228
pubmed: 20607099
Rofo. 2018 Jan;190(1):31-41
pubmed: 28934809
Med Phys. 2011 Mar;38(3):1178-88
pubmed: 21520830
Med Phys. 1981 Sep-Oct;8(5):659-67
pubmed: 7290019
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014 Dec;25(12):1929-35
pubmed: 25311968
Invest Radiol. 2012 May;47(5):292-8
pubmed: 22472797
Invest Radiol. 2016 Feb;51(2):139-46
pubmed: 26561048
Med Image Anal. 2005 Dec;9(6):594-604
pubmed: 15896995
Radiology. 2013 Jul;268(1):237-44
pubmed: 23513244
Eur Radiol. 2015 Dec;25(12):3567-76
pubmed: 25981220
Invest Radiol. 2014 Dec;49(12):788-93
pubmed: 24979325
Invest Radiol. 2019 Jun;54(6):365-373
pubmed: 31048632
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Nov;199(5 Suppl):S3-8
pubmed: 23097165
Radiology. 2013 Jan;266(1):318-25
pubmed: 23074259
Radiology. 2011 Apr;259(1):257-62
pubmed: 21330561
Radiographics. 2004 Nov-Dec;24(6):1679-91
pubmed: 15537976
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 17;9(10):e110201
pubmed: 25330198
Med Phys. 2010 Oct;37(10):5482-93
pubmed: 21089784
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015 Nov;36(11):2184-90
pubmed: 26251433
Eur Spine J. 2016 Jun;25(6):1754-63
pubmed: 26070548
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571