Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37669507›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2023

Characterization of single- and multi-energy CT performance of an oral dark borosilicate contrast media using a clinical photon-counting-detector CT platform.

Liqiang Ren, Yuxin Sun, Benjamin Yeh, Jeffrey F Marsh, Timothy N Winfree, Kristin A Burke, Kishore Rajendran, Cynthia H McCollough, Achille Mileto, Joel G Fletcher and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 47% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Oral CT Contrast Agents: What's New and Why, From theAJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2024
    Review
  4. Use of oral contrast in 2024: primer for radiologists.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024
    Review
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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Liqiang RenDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Yuxin SunNEXTRAST, INC., Hillsborough, California, USA.
Benjamin YehNEXTRAST, INC., Hillsborough, California, USA.
Jeffrey F MarshDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Timothy N WinfreeDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Kristin A BurkeDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Kishore RajendranDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Cynthia H McColloughDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Achille MiletoDepartment of Radiology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Joel G FletcherDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Shuai LengDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Mayo Clinic · USK Lab (United States) · USVirginia Mason Medical Center · US

Funding

Novel Bowel Contrast Agent for Dual Energy CTR44DK103495 · NIDDK · NEXTRAST, INC. · PI DAVIS, MICHAEL A · 2015 to 2018
$2.1M
NIDDK NIH HHS R44 DK103495
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe feasibility of oral dark contrast media is under exploration in abdominal computed tomography (CT) applications. One of the experimental contrast media in this class is dark borosilicate contrast media (DBCM), which has a CT attenuation lower than that of intra-abdominal fat. PURPOSE: To evaluate the performances of DBCM using single- and multi-energy CT imaging on a clinical photon-counting-detector CT (PCD-CT).

methodsFive vials, three with iodinated contrast agent (5, 10, and 20 mg/mL; Omnipaque 350) and two with DBCM (6% and 12%; Nextrast, Inc.), and one solid-water rod (neutral contrast agent) were inserted into two multi-energy CT phantoms, and scanned on a clinical PCD-CT system (NAEOTOM Alpha) at 90, 120, 140, Sn100, and Sn140 kV (Sn: tin filter) in multi-energy mode. CARE keV IQ level was 180 (CTDIvol: 3.0 and 12.0 mGy for the small and large phantoms, respectively). Low-energy threshold images were reconstructed with a quantitative kernel (Qr40, iterative reconstruction strength 2) and slice thickness/increment of 2.0/2.0 mm. Virtual monoenergetic images (VMIs) were reconstructed from 40 to 140 keV at 10 keV increments. On all images, average CT numbers for each vial/rod were measured using circular region-of-interests and averaged over eight slices. The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of iodine (5 mg/mL) against DBCM was calculated and plotted against tube potential and VMI energy level, and compared to the CNR of iodine against water. Similar analyses were performed on iodine maps and VNC images derived from the multi-energy scan at 120 kV.

resultsWith increasing kV or VMI keV, the negative HU of DBCM decreased only slightly, whereas the positive HU of iodine decreased across all contrast concentrations and phantom sizes. CT numbers for DBCM decreased from -178.5 ± 9.6 to -194.4 ± 6.3 HU (small phantom) and from -181.7 ± 15.7 to -192.1 ± 11.9 HU (large phantom) for DBCM-12% from 90 to Sn140 kV; on VMIs, the CT numbers for DBCM decreased minimally from -147.1 ± 15.7 to -185.1 ± 9.2 HU (small phantom) and -158.8 ± 28.6 to -188.9 ± 14.7 HU (large phantom) from 40 to 70 keV, but remained stable from 80 to 140 keV. The highest iodine CNR against DBCM in low-energy threshold images was seen at 90 or Sn140 kV for the small phantom, whereas all CNR values from low-energy threshold images for the large phantom were comparable. The CNR values of iodine against DBCM computed on VMIs were highest at 40 or 70 keV depending on iodine and DBCM concentrations. The CNR values of iodine against DBCM were consistently higher than iodine to water (up to 460% higher dependent on energy level). Further, the CNR of iodine compared to DBCM is less affected by VMI energy level than the identical comparison between iodine and water: CNR values at 140 keV were reduced by 46.6% (small phantom) or 42.6% (large phantom) compared to 40 keV; CNR values for iodine compared to water were reduced by 86.3% and 83.8% for similar phantom sizes, respectively. Compared to 70 keV VMI, the iodine CNR against DBCM was 13%-79% lower on iodine maps and VNC.

conclusionsWhen evaluated at different tube potentials and VMI energy levels using a clinical PCD-CT system, DBCM showed consistently higher CNR compared to iodine versus water (a neutral contrast).

Indexed as

Contrast MediaIodineIohexolPhantoms, ImagingSignal-To-Noise RatioTomography, X-Ray ComputedWaterContrast MediaIodineIohexolWatercontrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)dark borosilicate contrast media (DBCM)multi-energy spectral post processingphoton-counting-detector CT (PCD-CT)virtual monoenergetic images (VMIs)

Identifiers

PMID37669507
PMCPMC10840945
OpenAlexW4386447637

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.