Single-energy versus dual-energy imaging during CT-guided biopsy using dedicated metal artifact reduction algorithm in an in vivo pig model.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
18
01
2021
accepted:
28
03
2021
entrez:
26
4
2021
pubmed:
27
4
2021
medline:
29
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To evaluate dual-energy CT (DE) and dedicated metal artifact reduction algorithms (iMAR) during CT-guided biopsy in comparison to single-energy CT (SE). A trocar was placed in the liver of six pigs. CT acquisitions were performed with SE and dose equivalent DE at four dose levels(1.7-13.5mGy). Iterative reconstructions were performed with and without iMAR. ROIs were placed in four positions e.g. at the trocar tip(TROCAR) and liver parenchyma adjacent to the trocar tip(LIVER-1) by two independent observers for quantitative analysis using CT numbers, noise, SNR and CNR. Qualitative image analysis was performed regarding overall image quality and artifacts generated by iMAR. There were no significant differences in CT numbers between DE and SE at TROCAR and LIVER-1 irrespective of iMAR. iMAR significantly reduced metal artifacts at LIVER-1 for all exposure settings for DE and SE(p = 0.02-0.04), but not at TROCAR. SNR, CNR and noise were comparable for DE and SE. SNR was best for high dose levels of 6.7/13.5mGy. Mean difference in the Blant-Altman analysis was -8.43 to 0.36. Cohen's kappa for qualitative interreader-agreement was 0.901. iMAR independently reduced metal artifacts more effectively and efficiently than CT acquisition in DE at any dose setting and its application is feasible during CT-guided liver biopsy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33901200
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249921
pii: PONE-D-21-01835
pmc: PMC8075226
doi:
Substances chimiques
Metals
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0249921Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
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
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 24;10(11):e0143584
pubmed: 26600188
Clin Radiol. 2015 Apr;70(4):366-72
pubmed: 25554541
Eur Radiol. 2015 Dec;25(12):3567-76
pubmed: 25981220
Eur Radiol. 2016 Aug;26(8):2462-70
pubmed: 26563349
Sci Rep. 2020 Apr 20;10(1):6629
pubmed: 32313094
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 17;9(10):e110201
pubmed: 25330198
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014 Dec;25(12):1929-35
pubmed: 25311968
Psychol Bull. 1968 Oct;70(4):213-20
pubmed: 19673146
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Nov;173(5):1199-202
pubmed: 10541088
Radiology. 2013 Jul;268(1):237-44
pubmed: 23513244
Rofo. 1999 Jul;171(1):44-8
pubmed: 10464504
Eur Radiol. 2021 Feb 25;:
pubmed: 33630164
Med Phys. 2012 Apr;39(4):1904-16
pubmed: 22482612
Acad Radiol. 2009 Nov;16(11):1400-7
pubmed: 19596594
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Dec;199(6):1266-74
pubmed: 23169718
Eur Radiol. 2013 Oct;23(10):2687-94
pubmed: 23686292
Invest Radiol. 2015 Dec;50(12):828-34
pubmed: 26171565
Invest Radiol. 2010 Jun;45(6):347-53
pubmed: 20404737
Eur Radiol. 2018 Nov;28(11):4524-4533
pubmed: 29725834
Neuroradiology. 2017 Jul;59(7):649-654
pubmed: 28580532
Med Phys. 2016 Aug;43(8):4877
pubmed: 27487905
Rofo. 2018 Jan;190(1):31-41
pubmed: 28934809
Med Phys. 2010 Oct;37(10):5482-93
pubmed: 21089784
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015 Nov;36(11):2184-90
pubmed: 26251433