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: Image quality and dose exposure of contrast-enhanced abdominal CT on a 1st generation clinical dual-source photon-counting detector CT in obese patients vs. a 2nd generation dual-source dual energy integrating detector CT.
    Author: Hagen F, Hofmann J, Wrazidlo R, Gutjahr R, Schmidt B, Faby S, Nikolaou K, Horger M.
    Journal: Eur J Radiol; 2022 Jun; 151():110325. PubMed ID: 35472649.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare the radiation dose as well as the image quality of contrast-enhanced abdominal 1st-generation Photon-Counting Detector CT (PCD-CT) to a 2nd-generation Dual-Source Dual-Energy-Integrating-Detector CT (DSCT) in obese patients. METHOD: 51 overweight (BMI ≥ 25 kgm2) patients (median age: 67.00 years; IQR: 59.00-73.00, median BMI 32.15 kgm2; IQR: 28.70-35.76) who underwent clinically indicated, contrast-enhanced abdominal-CT in portal-venous phase on both 2nd-generation DSCT and on a commercially available 1st-generation PCD-CT were prospectively included the degree of obesity was defined by BMI-calculation (overweight, obesity grade I/30-34.9; obesity grade II/35-39.9; obesity grade III > 40) and by the absolute weight value. The same contrast media and pump protocol were used for both scans. PCD-CT was performed in Quantumplus mode at 120 kVp whereas DSCT used also 120 kVp in single energy mode. Comparable convolution algorithm between DSCT and PCD-CT were set. For both scanners, polychromatic images were reconstructed; for PCD-CT data from all counted events above the lowest energy threshold at 20 keV (termed T3D) were used. Two independent radiologists assessed subjective image quality using a 5-point Likert-scale and quantified the contrast-to-noise ratio of parenchymatous organs and vascular structures. RESULTS: Median time interval between the scans was 4 months (IQR 3-7 months). BMI was classified overweight (n = 18, 35.3%), grade I (n = 19, 37.3%), II (n = 9, 17.6%), III (n = 5, 9.8%). Mean CNRrenal_cortex (12.35 ± 3.77 vs. 14.16 ± 3.55) as well as median CNRvessels (9.88 vs. 12.40) and median CNRpancreas (2.81 vs. 4.04) of PCD-CT were significantly higher than those at DSCT (p < 0.05). The inter-reader agreement for all subjective image quality readings was moderate to substantial. Both radiologists independently rated the image quality higher for PCD-CT data sets (p < 0.05). Median CTDI and DLP values for PCD-CT and DSCT were 12.00 mGy (IQR: 10.20-13.50 mGy) vs. 16.05 mGy (IQR: 14.81-17.98) and 608 mGy * cm (IQR: 521.00-748.00 mGy * cm) vs. and 821.90 mGy * cm (IQR: 709.30-954.00 mGy * cm) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Significant dose reduction by similar or even improved image quality was obtained with abdominal contrast-enhanced CT using PCD-CT in obese patients as compared to 2nd-generation DSCT.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]