Cargando…

DECT Numbers in Upper Abdominal Organs for Differential Diagnosis: A Feasibility Study

Evaluating the similarity between two entities such as primary and suspected metastatic lesions using quantitative dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) numbers may be useful. However, the criteria for the similarity between two entities based on DECT numbers remain unclear. We therefore considered...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Toshima, Fumihito, Yoneda, Norihide, Terada, Kanako, Inoue, Dai, Gabata, Toshifumi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9680450/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36412684
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/tomography8060225
_version_ 1784834420899840000
author Toshima, Fumihito
Yoneda, Norihide
Terada, Kanako
Inoue, Dai
Gabata, Toshifumi
author_facet Toshima, Fumihito
Yoneda, Norihide
Terada, Kanako
Inoue, Dai
Gabata, Toshifumi
author_sort Toshima, Fumihito
collection PubMed
description Evaluating the similarity between two entities such as primary and suspected metastatic lesions using quantitative dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) numbers may be useful. However, the criteria for the similarity between two entities based on DECT numbers remain unclear. We therefore considered the possibility that a similarity in DECT numbers within the same organ could provide suitable standards. Thus, we assumed that the variation in DECT numbers within a single organ is sufficiently minimal to be considered clinically equivalent. Therefore, the purpose of this preliminary study is to investigate the differences in DECT numbers within upper abdominal organs. This retrospective study included 30 patients with data from hepatic protocol DECT scans. DECT numbers of the following parameters were collected: (a, b) 70 and 40 keV CT values, (c) slope, (d) effective Z, and (e, f) iodine and water concentration. The agreement of DECT numbers obtained from two regions of interest in the same organ (liver, spleen, and kidney) were assessed using Bland–Altman analysis. The diagnostic ability of each DECT parameter to distinguish between the same or different organs was also assessed using receiver operating characteristic analysis. The 95% limits of agreement within the same organ exhibited the narrowest value range on delayed phase (DP) CT [(c) −11.2–8.3%, (d) −2.0–1.5%, (e) −11.3–8.4%, and (f) −0.59–0.62%]. The diagnostic ability was notably high when using differences in DECT numbers on portal venous (PVP) and DP images (the area under the curve of DP: 0.987–0.999 in (c)–(f)). Using the variability in DECT numbers in the same organ as a criterion for defining similarity may be helpful in making a differential diagnosis by comparing the DECT numbers of two entities.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9680450
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96804502022-11-23 DECT Numbers in Upper Abdominal Organs for Differential Diagnosis: A Feasibility Study Toshima, Fumihito Yoneda, Norihide Terada, Kanako Inoue, Dai Gabata, Toshifumi Tomography Article Evaluating the similarity between two entities such as primary and suspected metastatic lesions using quantitative dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) numbers may be useful. However, the criteria for the similarity between two entities based on DECT numbers remain unclear. We therefore considered the possibility that a similarity in DECT numbers within the same organ could provide suitable standards. Thus, we assumed that the variation in DECT numbers within a single organ is sufficiently minimal to be considered clinically equivalent. Therefore, the purpose of this preliminary study is to investigate the differences in DECT numbers within upper abdominal organs. This retrospective study included 30 patients with data from hepatic protocol DECT scans. DECT numbers of the following parameters were collected: (a, b) 70 and 40 keV CT values, (c) slope, (d) effective Z, and (e, f) iodine and water concentration. The agreement of DECT numbers obtained from two regions of interest in the same organ (liver, spleen, and kidney) were assessed using Bland–Altman analysis. The diagnostic ability of each DECT parameter to distinguish between the same or different organs was also assessed using receiver operating characteristic analysis. The 95% limits of agreement within the same organ exhibited the narrowest value range on delayed phase (DP) CT [(c) −11.2–8.3%, (d) −2.0–1.5%, (e) −11.3–8.4%, and (f) −0.59–0.62%]. The diagnostic ability was notably high when using differences in DECT numbers on portal venous (PVP) and DP images (the area under the curve of DP: 0.987–0.999 in (c)–(f)). Using the variability in DECT numbers in the same organ as a criterion for defining similarity may be helpful in making a differential diagnosis by comparing the DECT numbers of two entities. MDPI 2022-11-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9680450/ /pubmed/36412684 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/tomography8060225 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
Toshima, Fumihito
Yoneda, Norihide
Terada, Kanako
Inoue, Dai
Gabata, Toshifumi
DECT Numbers in Upper Abdominal Organs for Differential Diagnosis: A Feasibility Study
title DECT Numbers in Upper Abdominal Organs for Differential Diagnosis: A Feasibility Study
title_full DECT Numbers in Upper Abdominal Organs for Differential Diagnosis: A Feasibility Study
title_fullStr DECT Numbers in Upper Abdominal Organs for Differential Diagnosis: A Feasibility Study
title_full_unstemmed DECT Numbers in Upper Abdominal Organs for Differential Diagnosis: A Feasibility Study
title_short DECT Numbers in Upper Abdominal Organs for Differential Diagnosis: A Feasibility Study
title_sort dect numbers in upper abdominal organs for differential diagnosis: a feasibility study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9680450/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36412684
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/tomography8060225
work_keys_str_mv AT toshimafumihito dectnumbersinupperabdominalorgansfordifferentialdiagnosisafeasibilitystudy
AT yonedanorihide dectnumbersinupperabdominalorgansfordifferentialdiagnosisafeasibilitystudy
AT teradakanako dectnumbersinupperabdominalorgansfordifferentialdiagnosisafeasibilitystudy
AT inouedai dectnumbersinupperabdominalorgansfordifferentialdiagnosisafeasibilitystudy
AT gabatatoshifumi dectnumbersinupperabdominalorgansfordifferentialdiagnosisafeasibilitystudy