Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29685522›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of radiology2018

Rapid switching kVp dual energy CT: Value of reconstructed dual energy CT images and organ dose assessment in multiphasic liver CT exams.

Usman Mahmood, Natally Horvat, Joao Vicente Horvat, Davinia Ryan, Yiming Gao, Gabriella Carollo, Rommel DeOcampo, Richard K Do, Seth Katz, Scott Gerst and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Updates on Imaging of Liver Tumors.Current oncology reports · 2020
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Usman MahmoodDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: mahmoodu@mskcc.org.
Natally HorvatDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: desouzn1@mskcc.org.
Joao Vicente HorvatDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: machadoj@mskcc.org.
Davinia RyanDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: ryand4@mskcc.org.
Yiming GaoDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: gaoy1@mskcc.org.
Gabriella CarolloDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: bellacarollo@yahoo.com.
Rommel DeOcampoDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: deocamr1@mskcc.org.
Richard K DoDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: dok@mskcc.org.
Seth KatzDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: katzs2@mskcc.org.
Scott GerstDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: gersts@mskcc.org.
C Ross SchmidtleinDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: schmidtr@mskcc.org.
Lawrence DauerDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA; Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: dauerl@mskcc.org.
Yusuf ErdiDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: erdiy@mskcc.org.
Lorenzo MannelliDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: mannelll@mskcc.org.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Elisa de Stanchina · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeClinical applications of dual energy computed tomography (DECT) have been widely reported; however, the importance of the different image reconstructions and radiation organ dose remains a relevant area of investigation, particularly considering the different commercially available DECT equipment. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the image reliability and compare the information content between several image reconstructions in a rapid-switching DECT (rsDECT), and assess radiation organ dose between rsDECT and conventional single-energy computed tomography (SECT) exams. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study included 98 consecutive patients who had a history of liver cancer and underwent multiphasic liver CT exams with rsDECT applied during the late arterial phase between June 2015 and December 2015. Virtual monochromatic 70 keV, material density images (MDI) iodine (-water) and virtual unenhanced (VUE) images were generated. Radiation dose analysis was performed in a subset of 44 patients who had also undergone a multiphasic SECT examination within 6 months of the rsDECT. Four board-certified abdominal radiologists reviewed 24-25 patients each, and a fifth radiologist re-evaluated all the scans to reach a consensus. The following imaging aspects were assessed by the radiologists: (a) attenuation measurements were made in the liver and spleen in VUE and true unenhanced (TUE) images; (b) subjective evaluation for lesion detection and conspicuity on MDI iodine (-water)/VUE images compared with the virtual monochromatic images/TUE images; and (c) overall image quality using a five-point Likert scale. The radiation dose analyses were evaluated in the subset of 44 patients regarding the following parameters: CTDIvol, dose length product, patient's effective diameter and organ dose using a Monte Carlo-based software, VirtualDose™ (Virtual Phantoms, Inc.) to 21 organs.

resultsOn average, image noise on the TUE images was 49% higher within the liver (p < 0.0001) and 48% higher within the spleen (p < 0.0001). CT numbers for the spleen were significantly higher on VUE images (p < 0.0001). Twenty-eight lesions in 24/98 (24.5%) patients were not observed on the VUE images. The conspicuity of vascular anatomy was considered better on MDI iodine (-water) Images 26.5% of patients. Using the Likert scale, the rsDECT image quality was considered to be satisfactory. Considering the subset of 44 patients with recent SECT, the organ dose was, on average, 37.4% less with rsDECT. As the patient's effective diameter decreased, the differences in dose between the rsDECT and SECT increased, with the total average organ dose being less by 65.1% when rsDECT was used.

conclusionVUE images in the population had lower image noise than TUE images; however, a few small and hyperdense findings were not characterized on VUE images. Delineation of vascular anatomy was considered better in around a quarter of patients on MDI iodine (-water) images. Finally, radiation dose, particularly organ dose, was found to be lower with rsDECT, especially in smaller patients.

Indexed as

Radiation DosageAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedIodineLiverLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedRadiography, Dual-Energy Scanned ProjectionReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesIodineDECTRapid-switching kVVirtual unenhanced

Identifiers

PMID29685522
PMCPMC5918634

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.