Cargando…
Photon-counting CT allows better visualization of temporal bone structures in comparison with current generation multi-detector CT
PURPOSE: To compare photon-counting CT (PCCT) and multi-detector CT (MDCT) for visualization of temporal bone anatomic structures. METHODS: Thirty-six exams of temporal bones without pathology were collected from consecutive patients on a MDCT, and another 35 exams on a PCCT scanner. Two radiologist...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Vienna
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10317909/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37395919 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01467-w |
_version_ | 1785067925148794880 |
---|---|
author | Hermans, Robert Boomgaert, Lukas Cockmartin, Lesley Binst, Joke De Stefanis, Rashèl Bosmans, Hilde |
author_facet | Hermans, Robert Boomgaert, Lukas Cockmartin, Lesley Binst, Joke De Stefanis, Rashèl Bosmans, Hilde |
author_sort | Hermans, Robert |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To compare photon-counting CT (PCCT) and multi-detector CT (MDCT) for visualization of temporal bone anatomic structures. METHODS: Thirty-six exams of temporal bones without pathology were collected from consecutive patients on a MDCT, and another 35 exams on a PCCT scanner. Two radiologists independently scored visibility of 14 structures for the MDCT and PCCT dataset, using a 5-point Likert scale, with a 2-month wash-out period. For MDCT, the acquisition parameters were: 110 kV, 64 × 0.6 mm (slice thickness reconstructed to 0.4 mm), pitch 0.85, quality ref. mAs 150, and 1 s rotation time; for PCCT: 120 kV, 144 × 0.2 mm, pitch 0.35, IQ level 75, and 0.5 s rotation time. Patient doses were reported as dose length product values (DLP). Statistical analysis was done using the Mann–Whitney U test, visual grading characteristic (VGC) analysis, and ordinal regression. RESULTS: Substantial agreement was found between readers (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.63 and 0.52 for MDCT and PCCT, resp.). All structures were scored higher for PCCT (p < 0.0001), except for Arnold’s canal (p = 0.12). The area under the VGC curve was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.73–0.79), indicating a significantly better visualization on PCCT. Ordinal regression showed the odds for better visualization are 354 times higher (95% CI, 75–1673) in PCCT (p < 0.0001). Average (range) of DLP was 95 (79–127) mGy*cm for MDCT and 74 (50–95) mGy*cm for PCCT (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PCCT provides a better depiction of temporal bone anatomy than MDCT, at a lower radiation dose. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: PCCT provides a better depiction of temporal bone anatomy than MDCT, at a lower radiation dose. KEY POINTS: 1. PCCT allows high-resolution imaging of temporal bone structures. 2. Compared to MDCT, the visibility of normal temporal bone structures is scored better with PCCT. 3. PCCT allows to obtain high-quality CT images of the temporal bones at lower radiation doses than MDCT. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10317909 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer Vienna |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103179092023-07-05 Photon-counting CT allows better visualization of temporal bone structures in comparison with current generation multi-detector CT Hermans, Robert Boomgaert, Lukas Cockmartin, Lesley Binst, Joke De Stefanis, Rashèl Bosmans, Hilde Insights Imaging Original Article PURPOSE: To compare photon-counting CT (PCCT) and multi-detector CT (MDCT) for visualization of temporal bone anatomic structures. METHODS: Thirty-six exams of temporal bones without pathology were collected from consecutive patients on a MDCT, and another 35 exams on a PCCT scanner. Two radiologists independently scored visibility of 14 structures for the MDCT and PCCT dataset, using a 5-point Likert scale, with a 2-month wash-out period. For MDCT, the acquisition parameters were: 110 kV, 64 × 0.6 mm (slice thickness reconstructed to 0.4 mm), pitch 0.85, quality ref. mAs 150, and 1 s rotation time; for PCCT: 120 kV, 144 × 0.2 mm, pitch 0.35, IQ level 75, and 0.5 s rotation time. Patient doses were reported as dose length product values (DLP). Statistical analysis was done using the Mann–Whitney U test, visual grading characteristic (VGC) analysis, and ordinal regression. RESULTS: Substantial agreement was found between readers (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.63 and 0.52 for MDCT and PCCT, resp.). All structures were scored higher for PCCT (p < 0.0001), except for Arnold’s canal (p = 0.12). The area under the VGC curve was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.73–0.79), indicating a significantly better visualization on PCCT. Ordinal regression showed the odds for better visualization are 354 times higher (95% CI, 75–1673) in PCCT (p < 0.0001). Average (range) of DLP was 95 (79–127) mGy*cm for MDCT and 74 (50–95) mGy*cm for PCCT (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PCCT provides a better depiction of temporal bone anatomy than MDCT, at a lower radiation dose. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: PCCT provides a better depiction of temporal bone anatomy than MDCT, at a lower radiation dose. KEY POINTS: 1. PCCT allows high-resolution imaging of temporal bone structures. 2. Compared to MDCT, the visibility of normal temporal bone structures is scored better with PCCT. 3. PCCT allows to obtain high-quality CT images of the temporal bones at lower radiation doses than MDCT. Springer Vienna 2023-07-03 /pmc/articles/PMC10317909/ /pubmed/37395919 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01467-w Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Hermans, Robert Boomgaert, Lukas Cockmartin, Lesley Binst, Joke De Stefanis, Rashèl Bosmans, Hilde Photon-counting CT allows better visualization of temporal bone structures in comparison with current generation multi-detector CT |
title | Photon-counting CT allows better visualization of temporal bone structures in comparison with current generation multi-detector CT |
title_full | Photon-counting CT allows better visualization of temporal bone structures in comparison with current generation multi-detector CT |
title_fullStr | Photon-counting CT allows better visualization of temporal bone structures in comparison with current generation multi-detector CT |
title_full_unstemmed | Photon-counting CT allows better visualization of temporal bone structures in comparison with current generation multi-detector CT |
title_short | Photon-counting CT allows better visualization of temporal bone structures in comparison with current generation multi-detector CT |
title_sort | photon-counting ct allows better visualization of temporal bone structures in comparison with current generation multi-detector ct |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10317909/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37395919 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01467-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hermansrobert photoncountingctallowsbettervisualizationoftemporalbonestructuresincomparisonwithcurrentgenerationmultidetectorct AT boomgaertlukas photoncountingctallowsbettervisualizationoftemporalbonestructuresincomparisonwithcurrentgenerationmultidetectorct AT cockmartinlesley photoncountingctallowsbettervisualizationoftemporalbonestructuresincomparisonwithcurrentgenerationmultidetectorct AT binstjoke photoncountingctallowsbettervisualizationoftemporalbonestructuresincomparisonwithcurrentgenerationmultidetectorct AT destefanisrashel photoncountingctallowsbettervisualizationoftemporalbonestructuresincomparisonwithcurrentgenerationmultidetectorct AT bosmanshilde photoncountingctallowsbettervisualizationoftemporalbonestructuresincomparisonwithcurrentgenerationmultidetectorct |