Cargando…

Image quality comparison of single-energy and dual-energy computed tomography for head and neck patients: a prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the quality of images obtained using single-energy computed tomography (SECT) performed with automated tube voltage adaptation (TVA) with dual-energy CT (DECT) weighted average images. METHODS: Eighty patients were prospectively randomized to undergo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bedernik, Andreas, Wuest, Wolfgang, May, Matthias Stefan, Heiss, Rafael, Uder, Michael, Wiesmueller, Marco
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9668949/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35441839
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08689-4
_version_ 1784832025678577664
author Bedernik, Andreas
Wuest, Wolfgang
May, Matthias Stefan
Heiss, Rafael
Uder, Michael
Wiesmueller, Marco
author_facet Bedernik, Andreas
Wuest, Wolfgang
May, Matthias Stefan
Heiss, Rafael
Uder, Michael
Wiesmueller, Marco
author_sort Bedernik, Andreas
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the quality of images obtained using single-energy computed tomography (SECT) performed with automated tube voltage adaptation (TVA) with dual-energy CT (DECT) weighted average images. METHODS: Eighty patients were prospectively randomized to undergo either SECT with TVA (n = 40, ref. mAs 200) or radiation dose–matched DECT (n = 40, 80/Sn150 kV, ref. mAs tube A 91/tube B 61) on a dual-source CT scanner. Objective image quality was evaluated as dose-normalized contrast-to-noise ratio (CNRD) for the jugular veins relative to fatty tissue and muscle tissue and for muscle tissue relative to fatty issue. For subjective image quality, reproduction of anatomical structures, image artifacts, image noise, spatial resolution, and overall diagnostic acceptability were evaluated at sixteen anatomical substructures using Likert-type scales. RESULTS: Effective radiation dose (ED) was comparable between SECT and DECT study groups (2.9 ± 0.6 mSv/3.1 ± 0.7 mSv, p = 0.5). All examinations were rated as excellent or good for clinical diagnosis. Compared to the CNRD in the SECT group, the CNRD in the DECT group was significantly higher for the jugular veins relative to fatty tissue (7.51/6.08, p < 0.001) and for muscle tissue relative to fatty tissue (4.18/2.90, p < 0.001). The CNRD for the jugular veins relative to muscle tissue (3.33/3.18, p = 0.51) was comparable between groups. Image artifacts were less pronounced and overall diagnostic acceptability was higher in the DECT group (all p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: DECT weighted average images deliver higher objective and subjective image quality than SECT performed with TVA in head and neck imaging. KEY POINTS: • Weighted average images derived from dual-energy CT deliver higher objective and subjective image quality than single-energy CT using automated tube voltage adaptation in head and neck imaging. • If available, dual-energy CT acquisition may be preferred over automated low tube voltage adopted single-energy CT for both malignant and non-malignant conditions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9668949
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96689492022-11-18 Image quality comparison of single-energy and dual-energy computed tomography for head and neck patients: a prospective randomized study Bedernik, Andreas Wuest, Wolfgang May, Matthias Stefan Heiss, Rafael Uder, Michael Wiesmueller, Marco Eur Radiol Head and Neck OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the quality of images obtained using single-energy computed tomography (SECT) performed with automated tube voltage adaptation (TVA) with dual-energy CT (DECT) weighted average images. METHODS: Eighty patients were prospectively randomized to undergo either SECT with TVA (n = 40, ref. mAs 200) or radiation dose–matched DECT (n = 40, 80/Sn150 kV, ref. mAs tube A 91/tube B 61) on a dual-source CT scanner. Objective image quality was evaluated as dose-normalized contrast-to-noise ratio (CNRD) for the jugular veins relative to fatty tissue and muscle tissue and for muscle tissue relative to fatty issue. For subjective image quality, reproduction of anatomical structures, image artifacts, image noise, spatial resolution, and overall diagnostic acceptability were evaluated at sixteen anatomical substructures using Likert-type scales. RESULTS: Effective radiation dose (ED) was comparable between SECT and DECT study groups (2.9 ± 0.6 mSv/3.1 ± 0.7 mSv, p = 0.5). All examinations were rated as excellent or good for clinical diagnosis. Compared to the CNRD in the SECT group, the CNRD in the DECT group was significantly higher for the jugular veins relative to fatty tissue (7.51/6.08, p < 0.001) and for muscle tissue relative to fatty tissue (4.18/2.90, p < 0.001). The CNRD for the jugular veins relative to muscle tissue (3.33/3.18, p = 0.51) was comparable between groups. Image artifacts were less pronounced and overall diagnostic acceptability was higher in the DECT group (all p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: DECT weighted average images deliver higher objective and subjective image quality than SECT performed with TVA in head and neck imaging. KEY POINTS: • Weighted average images derived from dual-energy CT deliver higher objective and subjective image quality than single-energy CT using automated tube voltage adaptation in head and neck imaging. • If available, dual-energy CT acquisition may be preferred over automated low tube voltage adopted single-energy CT for both malignant and non-malignant conditions. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-04-20 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9668949/ /pubmed/35441839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08689-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 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 Head and Neck
Bedernik, Andreas
Wuest, Wolfgang
May, Matthias Stefan
Heiss, Rafael
Uder, Michael
Wiesmueller, Marco
Image quality comparison of single-energy and dual-energy computed tomography for head and neck patients: a prospective randomized study
title Image quality comparison of single-energy and dual-energy computed tomography for head and neck patients: a prospective randomized study
title_full Image quality comparison of single-energy and dual-energy computed tomography for head and neck patients: a prospective randomized study
title_fullStr Image quality comparison of single-energy and dual-energy computed tomography for head and neck patients: a prospective randomized study
title_full_unstemmed Image quality comparison of single-energy and dual-energy computed tomography for head and neck patients: a prospective randomized study
title_short Image quality comparison of single-energy and dual-energy computed tomography for head and neck patients: a prospective randomized study
title_sort image quality comparison of single-energy and dual-energy computed tomography for head and neck patients: a prospective randomized study
topic Head and Neck
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9668949/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35441839
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08689-4
work_keys_str_mv AT bedernikandreas imagequalitycomparisonofsingleenergyanddualenergycomputedtomographyforheadandneckpatientsaprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT wuestwolfgang imagequalitycomparisonofsingleenergyanddualenergycomputedtomographyforheadandneckpatientsaprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT maymatthiasstefan imagequalitycomparisonofsingleenergyanddualenergycomputedtomographyforheadandneckpatientsaprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT heissrafael imagequalitycomparisonofsingleenergyanddualenergycomputedtomographyforheadandneckpatientsaprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT udermichael imagequalitycomparisonofsingleenergyanddualenergycomputedtomographyforheadandneckpatientsaprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT wiesmuellermarco imagequalitycomparisonofsingleenergyanddualenergycomputedtomographyforheadandneckpatientsaprospectiverandomizedstudy