1
|
Lennartz S, Zopfs D, Große Hokamp N. Dual-energy CT revisited: a focused review of clinical use cases. ROFO-FORTSCHR RONTG 2024; 196:794-806. [PMID: 38176436 DOI: 10.1055/a-2203-2945] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Lennartz
- Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - David Zopfs
- Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Nils Große Hokamp
- Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Asmundo L, Rizzetto F, Srinivas Rao S, Sgrazzutti C, Vicentin I, Kambadakone A, Catalano OA, Vanzulli A. Dual-energy CT applications on liver imaging: what radiologists and radiographers should know? A systematic review. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2024:10.1007/s00261-024-04380-y. [PMID: 38811447 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-024-04380-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2024] [Revised: 05/06/2024] [Accepted: 05/11/2024] [Indexed: 05/31/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE This review aims to provide a comprehensive summary of DECT techniques, acquisition workflows, and post-processing methods. By doing so, we aim to elucidate the advantages and disadvantages of DECT compared to conventional single-energy CT imaging. METHODS A systematic search was conducted on MEDLINE/EMBASE for DECT studies in liver imaging published between 1980 and 2024. Information regarding study design and endpoints, patient characteristics, DECT technical parameters, radiation dose, iodinated contrast agent (ICA) administration and postprocessing methods were extracted. Technical parameters, including DECT phase, field of view, pitch, collimation, rotation time, arterial phase timing (from injection), and venous timing (from injection) from the included studies were reported, along with formal narrative synthesis of main DECT applications for liver imaging. RESULTS Out of the initially identified 234 articles, 153 met the inclusion criteria. Extensive variability in acquisition parameters was observed, except for tube voltage (80/140 kVp combination reported in 50% of articles) and ICA administration (1.5 mL/kg at 3-4 mL/s, reported in 91% of articles). Radiation dose information was provided in only 40% of articles (range: 6-80 mGy), and virtual non-contrast imaging (VNC) emerged as a common strategy to reduce the radiation dose. The primary application of DECT post-processed images was in detecting focal liver lesions (47% of articles), with predominance of study focusing on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (27%). Furthermore, a significant proportion of the articles (16%) focused on enhancing DECT protocols, while 15% explored metastasis detection. CONCLUSION Our review recommends using 80/140 kVp tube voltage with 1.5 mL/kg ICA at 3-4 mL/s flow rate. Post-processing should include low keV-VMI for enhanced lesion detection, IMs for tumor iodine content evaluation, and VNC for dose reduction. However, heterogeneous literature hinders protocol standardization.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luigi Asmundo
- Postgraduate School of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Università degli Studi di Milano, via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122, Milan, Italy
- Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Francesco Rizzetto
- Postgraduate School of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Università degli Studi di Milano, via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122, Milan, Italy.
- Department of Radiology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore 3, 20162, Milan, Italy.
| | - Shravya Srinivas Rao
- Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Cristiano Sgrazzutti
- Department of Radiology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore 3, 20162, Milan, Italy
| | - Ilaria Vicentin
- Department of Radiology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore 3, 20162, Milan, Italy
| | - Avinash Kambadakone
- Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Onofrio Antonio Catalano
- Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Angelo Vanzulli
- Department of Radiology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore 3, 20162, Milan, Italy
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, Università degli Studi di Milano, via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Mahmoudi S, Bernatz S, Althoff FC, Koch V, Grünewald LD, Scholtz JE, Walter D, Zeuzem S, Wild PJ, Vogl TJ, Kinzler MN. Dual-energy CT based material decomposition to differentiate intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 2022; 156:110556. [PMID: 36270195 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110556] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2022] [Revised: 07/29/2022] [Accepted: 10/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To assess the potential of material decomposition in dual-energy CT (DECT) to differentiate intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHOD In this retrospective study, we included 94 patients (26 female (27.7 %), median age 64.5 (interquartile range 55.5-74.5) years) with either iCCA or HCC who underwent abdominal contrast-enhanced DECT in arterial phase. To test for differences between iCCA (n = 47) and HCC (n = 47), we evaluated mean attenuation and DECT material density values including iodine density (ID), normalized iodine uptake (NIU), fat fraction, and lesion-to-liver parenchyma ratio. Histopathology served as reference standard for all lesions. We used univariate logistic regression models for the outcome iCCA versus HCC. ROC curve analysis was applied to assess discriminative ability of the model. Model accuracy was evaluated by calculating the Brier score. Youden index was applied to establish thresholds to differentiate between iCCA and HCC. RESULTS Comparison of quantitative image parameters revealed significant differences between iCCA and HCC for ID (1.6 ± 0.5 mg/ml vs 2.8 ± 0.8 mg/ml, p < 0.001), NIU (14.5 ± 4.8 vs 24.8 ± 10.3, p < 0.001), attenuation (41.9 ± 10.1 HU vs 47.9 ± 8.9 HU, p = 0.003), and fat fraction (12.0 ± 7.8 % vs 9.0 ± 6.4 %, p = 0.045). ROC curve analysis revealed highest ability to differentiate iCCA from HCC for ID (AUC = 0.93, 95 % CI 0.89-0.98). For ID, an optimal threshold of 2.33 mg/dl was determined to discriminate between iCCA and HCC (sensitivity 89.4 %, specificity 76.6 %). CONCLUSIONS DECT-based iodine quantification can serve as a tool for the differentiation of iCCA and HCC in contrast-enhanced CT. ID yielded the highest diagnostic performance and may assist in clinical routine CT diagnostics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Scherwin Mahmoudi
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
| | - Simon Bernatz
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
| | - Friederike C Althoff
- Department of Internal Medicine II, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
| | - Vitali Koch
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
| | - Leon D Grünewald
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
| | - Jan-Erik Scholtz
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
| | - Dirk Walter
- Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
| | - Stefan Zeuzem
- Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
| | - Peter J Wild
- Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Wildlab, University Hospital Frankfurt MVZ GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
| | - Thomas J Vogl
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
| | - Maximilian N Kinzler
- Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|