Cargando…

Assessment of Liver Fat: Dual-Energy CT versus Conventional CT with and without Contrast

We assessed the correlation between liver fat percentage using dual-energy CT (DECT) and Hounsfield unit (HU) measurements in contrast and non-contrast CT. This study included 177 patients in two patient groups: Group A (n = 125) underwent whole body non-contrast DECT and group B (n = 52) had a mult...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xu, Jack Junchi, Boesen, Mikkel Ranum, Hansen, Sofie Lindskov, Ulriksen, Peter Sommer, Holm, Søren, Lönn, Lars, Hansen, Kristoffer Lindskov
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8946969/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35328261
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12030708
_version_ 1784674325785214976
author Xu, Jack Junchi
Boesen, Mikkel Ranum
Hansen, Sofie Lindskov
Ulriksen, Peter Sommer
Holm, Søren
Lönn, Lars
Hansen, Kristoffer Lindskov
author_facet Xu, Jack Junchi
Boesen, Mikkel Ranum
Hansen, Sofie Lindskov
Ulriksen, Peter Sommer
Holm, Søren
Lönn, Lars
Hansen, Kristoffer Lindskov
author_sort Xu, Jack Junchi
collection PubMed
description We assessed the correlation between liver fat percentage using dual-energy CT (DECT) and Hounsfield unit (HU) measurements in contrast and non-contrast CT. This study included 177 patients in two patient groups: Group A (n = 125) underwent whole body non-contrast DECT and group B (n = 52) had a multiphasic DECT including a conventional non-contrast CT. Three regions of interest were placed on each image series, one in the left liver lobe and two in the right to measure Hounsfield Units (HU) as well as liver fat percentage. Linear regression analysis was performed for each group as well as combined. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated to establish the optimal fat percentage threshold value in DECT for predicting a non-contrast threshold of 40 HU correlating to moderate-severe liver steatosis. We found a strong correlation between fat percentage found with DECT and HU measured in non-contrast CT in group A and B individually (R(2) = 0.81 and 0.86, respectively) as well as combined (R(2) = 0.85). No significant difference was found when comparing venous and arterial phase DECT fat percentage measurements in group B (p = 0.67). A threshold of 10% liver fat found with DECT had 95% sensitivity and 95% specificity for the prediction of a 40 HU threshold using non-contrast CT. In conclusion, liver fat quantification using DECT shows high correlation with HU measurements independent of scan phase.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8946969
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89469692022-03-25 Assessment of Liver Fat: Dual-Energy CT versus Conventional CT with and without Contrast Xu, Jack Junchi Boesen, Mikkel Ranum Hansen, Sofie Lindskov Ulriksen, Peter Sommer Holm, Søren Lönn, Lars Hansen, Kristoffer Lindskov Diagnostics (Basel) Article We assessed the correlation between liver fat percentage using dual-energy CT (DECT) and Hounsfield unit (HU) measurements in contrast and non-contrast CT. This study included 177 patients in two patient groups: Group A (n = 125) underwent whole body non-contrast DECT and group B (n = 52) had a multiphasic DECT including a conventional non-contrast CT. Three regions of interest were placed on each image series, one in the left liver lobe and two in the right to measure Hounsfield Units (HU) as well as liver fat percentage. Linear regression analysis was performed for each group as well as combined. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated to establish the optimal fat percentage threshold value in DECT for predicting a non-contrast threshold of 40 HU correlating to moderate-severe liver steatosis. We found a strong correlation between fat percentage found with DECT and HU measured in non-contrast CT in group A and B individually (R(2) = 0.81 and 0.86, respectively) as well as combined (R(2) = 0.85). No significant difference was found when comparing venous and arterial phase DECT fat percentage measurements in group B (p = 0.67). A threshold of 10% liver fat found with DECT had 95% sensitivity and 95% specificity for the prediction of a 40 HU threshold using non-contrast CT. In conclusion, liver fat quantification using DECT shows high correlation with HU measurements independent of scan phase. MDPI 2022-03-14 /pmc/articles/PMC8946969/ /pubmed/35328261 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12030708 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Xu, Jack Junchi
Boesen, Mikkel Ranum
Hansen, Sofie Lindskov
Ulriksen, Peter Sommer
Holm, Søren
Lönn, Lars
Hansen, Kristoffer Lindskov
Assessment of Liver Fat: Dual-Energy CT versus Conventional CT with and without Contrast
title Assessment of Liver Fat: Dual-Energy CT versus Conventional CT with and without Contrast
title_full Assessment of Liver Fat: Dual-Energy CT versus Conventional CT with and without Contrast
title_fullStr Assessment of Liver Fat: Dual-Energy CT versus Conventional CT with and without Contrast
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of Liver Fat: Dual-Energy CT versus Conventional CT with and without Contrast
title_short Assessment of Liver Fat: Dual-Energy CT versus Conventional CT with and without Contrast
title_sort assessment of liver fat: dual-energy ct versus conventional ct with and without contrast
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8946969/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35328261
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12030708
work_keys_str_mv AT xujackjunchi assessmentofliverfatdualenergyctversusconventionalctwithandwithoutcontrast
AT boesenmikkelranum assessmentofliverfatdualenergyctversusconventionalctwithandwithoutcontrast
AT hansensofielindskov assessmentofliverfatdualenergyctversusconventionalctwithandwithoutcontrast
AT ulriksenpetersommer assessmentofliverfatdualenergyctversusconventionalctwithandwithoutcontrast
AT holmsøren assessmentofliverfatdualenergyctversusconventionalctwithandwithoutcontrast
AT lonnlars assessmentofliverfatdualenergyctversusconventionalctwithandwithoutcontrast
AT hansenkristofferlindskov assessmentofliverfatdualenergyctversusconventionalctwithandwithoutcontrast