These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Initial Results of a Single-Source Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Technique Using a Split-Filter: Assessment of Image Quality, Radiation Dose, and Accuracy of Dual-Energy Applications in an In Vitro and In Vivo Study.
    Author: Euler A, Parakh A, Falkowski AL, Manneck S, Dashti D, Krauss B, Szucs-Farkas Z, Schindera ST.
    Journal: Invest Radiol; 2016 Aug; 51(8):491-8. PubMed ID: 26895193.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the image quality, radiation dose, and accuracy of virtual noncontrast images and iodine quantification of split-filter dual-energy computed tomography (CT) using a single x-ray source in a phantom and patient study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a phantom study, objective image quality and accuracy of iodine quantification were evaluated for the split-filter dual-energy mode using a tin and gold filter. In a patient study, objective image quality and radiation dose were compared in thoracoabdominal CT of 50 patients between the standard single-energy and split-filter dual-energy mode. The radiation dose was estimated by size-specific dose estimate. To evaluate the accuracy of virtual noncontrast imaging, attenuation measurements in the liver, spleen, and muscle were compared between a true noncontrast premonitoring scan and the virtual noncontrast images of the dual-energy scans. Descriptive statistics and the Mann-Whitney U test were used. RESULTS: In the phantom study, differences between the real and measured iodine concentration ranged from 2.2% to 21.4%. In the patient study, the single-energy and dual-energy protocols resulted in similar image noise (7.4 vs 7.1 HU, respectively; P = 0.43) and parenchymal contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) values for the liver (29.2 vs 28.5, respectively; P = 0.88). However, the vascular CNR value for the single-energy protocol was significantly higher than for the dual-energy protocol (10.0 vs 7.1, respectively; P = 0.006). The difference in the measured attenuation between the true and the virtual noncontrast images ranged from 3.1 to 6.7 HU. The size-specific dose estimate of the dual-energy protocol was, on average, 17% lower than that of the single-energy protocol (11.7 vs 9.7 mGy, respectively; P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Split-filter dual-energy compared with single-energy CT results in similar objective image noise in addition to dual-energy capabilities at 17% lower radiation dose. Because of beam hardening, split-filter dual-energy can lead to decreased CNR values of iodinated structures.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]