Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33411614›Full record

ArticleRadiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc

Dual-Energy CT Images: Pearls and Pitfalls.

Anushri Parakh, Simon Lennartz, Chansik An, Prabhakar Rajiah, Benjamin M Yeh, Frank J Simeone, Dushyant V Sahani, Avinash R Kambadakone

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

72 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Anushri ParakhFrom the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.); and Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.).ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4778-2383
Simon LennartzFrom the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.); and Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.).
Chansik AnFrom the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.); and Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.).ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0484-6658
Prabhakar RajiahFrom the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.); and Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.).ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7538-385X
Benjamin M YehFrom the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.); and Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.).
Frank J SimeoneFrom the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.); and Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.).ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2779-7534
Dushyant V SahaniFrom the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.); and Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.).
Avinash R KambadakoneFrom the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.); and Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.).ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6714-9190

Funding

Nanoparticle CT Contrast Agent for New Capabilities in Tumor Detection, Staging, and Therapy Planning and ResponseR01CA226868 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI YEH, BENJAMIN M · 2019 to 2022
$3.1M
Augmenting Dual Energy CT for Novel Contrast AgentsR42DK104580 · NIDDK · NEXTRAST, INC. · PI YEH, BENJAMIN M · 2017 to 2019
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA226868NIDDK NIH HHS R42 DK104580
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dual-energy CT (DECT) is a tremendous innovation in CT technology that allows creation of numerous imaging datasets by enabling discrete acquisitions at more than one energy level. The wide range of images generated from a single DECT acquisition provides several benefits such as improved lesion detection and characterization, superior determination of material composition, reduction in the dose of iodine, and more robust quantification. Technological advances and the proliferation of various processing methods have led to the availability of diverse vendor-based DECT approaches, each with a different acquisition and image reconstruction process. The images generated from various DECT scanners differ from those from conventional single-energy CT because of differences in their acquisition techniques, material decomposition methods, image reconstruction algorithms, and postprocessing methods. DECT images such as virtual monochromatic images, material density images, and virtual unenhanced images have different imaging appearances, texture features, and quantitative capabilities. This heterogeneity creates challenges in their routine interpretation and has certain associated pitfalls. Some artifacts such as residual iodine on virtual unenhanced images and an appearance of pseudopneumatosis in a gas-distended bowel loop on material-density iodine images are specific to DECT, while others such as pseudoenhancement seen on virtual monochromatic images are also observed at single-energy CT. Recognizing the potential pitfalls associated with DECT is necessary for appropriate and accurate interpretation of the results of this increasingly important imaging tool.

Indexed as

IodineRadiography, Dual-Energy Scanned ProjectionArtifactsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray ComputedIodine

Identifiers

PMID33411614
PMCPMC7853765

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.