Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Radiol Med. 2010 Dec;115(8):1258-66. doi: 10.1007/s11547-010-0583-3. Epub 2010 Sep 17.

Preliminary experience with abdominal dual-energy CT (DECT): true versus virtual nonenhanced images of the liver.

[Article in English, Italian]

Author information

1
Dipartimento di Radiologia Cardiovascolare, Ospedale San Camillo-Forlanini, Circonvallazione Gianicolense, Rome, Italy. carlodececco@gmail.com

Abstract

PURPOSE:

The aim of this work was to compare the quality and noise of true non-enhanced (TNE) and virtual non-enhanced (VNE) images in patients undergoing dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) of the liver.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Twenty consecutive patients (mean age 54.7±19.9 years) prospectively underwent abdominal DECT to assess the liver using a triphasic protocol consisting of precontrast, arterial-phase and portal-phase acquisitions. Exclusion criteria were allergy to iodinated contrast material, impaired renal function and a body mass index (BMI) >35 kg/m(2). The DE portal-phase acquisition was performed with automatic dose modulation (CARE Dose 4D). Nonionic iodinated contrast material (Iomeron 400) was administered at 0.625 gI/kg with a flow rate of 3.5 ml/s. Axial VNE images were reconstructed based on the portal data set using a collimation and an increment of 5 mm and were compared with TNE images reconstructed with the same parameters. The average image quality and noise were analysed by two radiologists in separate reading sessions.

RESULTS:

No statistically significant difference (p>0.05) in image quality was observed between VNE (4.00±0.85) and TNE images (4.35±0.58). A sufficient diagnostic quality was found in 95.0% (19/20) of VNE images and in 100% of TNE images. No statistically significant difference (p<0.05) was observed in the average image noise of VNE (9.5±0.7) and TNE (12.3±1.1) images.

CONCLUSIONS:

Abdominal DECT allows acquisition of liver VNE images with similar image quality and lower noise than TNE. Nevertheless, a few technical limitations related to the small field of view of the second detector in patients with a high BMI and heterogeneous iodine subtraction restrict the application of this technique to selected patients only.

PMID:
20852956
DOI:
10.1007/s11547-010-0583-3
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center