Milwaukee Radiologists, Ltd, Milwaukee, WI.
Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44195.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020 Aug;215(2):425-432. doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.22084. Epub 2020 May 6.
The purpose of this study was to compare a combined dual-energy CT (DECT) and single-energy CT (SECT) metal artifact reduction technique with a SECT metal artifact reduction technique for detecting lesions near an arthroplasty in a phantom model. Two CT phantoms with a cobalt chromium sphere attached to a titanium rod, simulating an arthroplasty, within a background of soft-tissue attenuation containing spherical lesions (range, 10-20 mm) around the head and stem of different attenuations from the background (range of attenuation, 10-70 HU) were scanned with a single CT scanner individually (unilateral) and together (bilateral) with the following three dose-equivalent techniques: the currently used clinical protocol (140 kVp, 300 Reference mAs); 100 kVp; and DECT (100 kVp and 150 kVp with a tin filter). Three radiologists reviewed the datasets to identify lesions. Nonparametric AUC was estimated for each reader with each technique. Multireader ANOVA was performed to compare AUCs. Multiple-variable logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors affecting sensitivity and specificity. Accuracy was lower ( < 0.001) for the DECT 130-keV technique than for the 100-, 70-, and 140-kVp techniques. Sensitivity was higher with unilateral arthroplasties ( = 0.037), with greater contrast differences from background ( < 0.001), and with the SECT 100-kVp technique versus other techniques ( < 0.001). The difference in specificities of modalities was not statistically significant ( = 0.148). Combining DECT and SECT techniques does not provide additional benefits for lesion detection as opposed to using SECT alone.
本研究旨在比较一种联合双能 CT(DECT)和单能 CT(SECT)金属伪影降低技术与一种 SECT 金属伪影降低技术,以检测假体附近的病变。两个 CT 体模在软组织衰减背景中附着有钴铬球体,模拟假体,在球体病变周围(范围为 10-20mm)和头部及柄部的不同衰减处(衰减范围为 10-70HU),使用单个 CT 扫描仪分别(单侧)和联合(双侧)进行扫描,使用以下三种剂量等效技术:当前使用的临床方案(140kVp,300mAs);100kVp;和 DECT(100kVp 和 150kVp 加锡滤器)。三位放射科医生审查了数据集以识别病变。使用非参数 AUC 估计每位读者的每种技术。进行多读者 ANOVA 比较 AUC。使用多变量逻辑回归分析确定影响敏感性和特异性的因素。与 100、70 和 140kVp 技术相比,DECT 130keV 技术的准确性较低(<0.001)。单侧假体(=0.037)、与背景的对比度差异更大(<0.001)以及与 SECT 100kVp 技术相比,其他技术的敏感性更高(<0.001)。各种技术的特异性差异无统计学意义(=0.148)。与单独使用 SECT 技术相比,联合使用 DECT 和 SECT 技术并不能为病变检测提供额外的益处。