Chen Tony, Xiao Hao, Shannon Roland
Department of Radiology, Western Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2019 Apr;63(2):170-174. doi: 10.1111/1754-9485.12845. Epub 2018 Dec 24.
The aim of this study is to compare the diagnostic sensitivity between dual-energy computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) studies and routine single-energy CTPA studies.
A total of 117 patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism were examined with dual-energy CTPA (DECT) and reformatted single-energy multidetector CTPA (MDCT) studies. Two independent radiologists assessed the image quality of the CTPAs with objective and subjective parameters, including by assigning an image quality score out of 10 for each study. Dose length product and effective dose were also calculated and compared.
The subjective image quality score for DECT and MDCT studies was 9.19 and 7.88, respectively; however, the increased level of detail in DECT may not be clinically applicable. Pulmonary artery filling defects were found in 12 patients, with no subjective diagnostic differences between dual-energy or single-energy studies with either radiologist. The effective dose for DECT ranged from 1.8 to 7.8 mSv. The effective dose for MDCT ranged from 1.2 to 6.4 mSv.
Radiologists are trained to look at routine MDCTs with high specificity and sensitivity. DECTs do not appear to offer trained radiologists improved detection of clinically relevant pulmonary emboli.
本研究的目的是比较双能量计算机断层扫描肺动脉造影(CTPA)与常规单能量CTPA研究之间的诊断敏感性。
共有117例临床疑似肺栓塞患者接受了双能量CTPA(DECT)和重组单能量多探测器CTPA(MDCT)检查。两名独立的放射科医生通过客观和主观参数评估CTPA的图像质量,包括为每项研究给出0至10分的图像质量评分。还计算并比较了剂量长度乘积和有效剂量。
DECT和MDCT研究的主观图像质量评分分别为9.19和7.88;然而,DECT中增加的细节水平可能在临床上并不适用。12例患者发现肺动脉充盈缺损,两位放射科医生在双能量或单能量研究之间均未发现主观诊断差异。DECT的有效剂量范围为1.8至7.8 mSv。MDCT的有效剂量范围为1.2至6.4 mSv。
放射科医生经过培训,能够以高特异性和敏感性解读常规MDCT。对于经过培训的放射科医生而言,DECT似乎并不能提高对临床相关肺栓塞的检测能力。