From the Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY.
Siemens Healthineers, Malvern, PA.
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2024;48(5):675-682. doi: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000001617. Epub 2024 Apr 10.
The aim of this study was to compare portal venous phase photon-counting CT (PCCT) using 20 cc less than weight-based contrast dosing with energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT) using weight-based dosing by quantitative and qualitative analysis.
Fifty adult patients who underwent a reduced intravenous contrast dose portal venous phase PCCT from May 1, 2023, to August 10, 2023, and a prior portal-venous EID-CT with weight-based contrast dosing were retrospectively identified. Hounsfield units (HU) and noise (SD of HU) were obtained from region-of-interest measurements on 70-keV PCCT and EID-CT in 4 hepatic segments, the main and right portal vein, and both paraspinal muscles. Signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios were computed. Three abdominal radiologists qualitatively assessed overall image quality, hepatic enhancement, and confidence for metastasis identification on 5-point Likert scales. Readers also recorded the presence/absence of hepatic metastases. Quantitative variables were compared with paired t tests, and multiple comparisons were accounted for with a Bonferroni-adjusted α level of .0016. Ordinal logistic regression was used to evaluate qualitative assessments. Interreader agreement for hepatic metastases was calculated using Fleiss' κ.
Fifty patients (32 women; mean [SD] age, 64 [13] years) were included. There was no significant difference in hepatic HU, portal vein HU, noise, and signal-to-noise or contrast-to-noise ratio between reduced contrast dose portal venous phase PCCT versus EID-CT (all P s > 0.0016). Image quality, degree of hepatic enhancement, and confidence for metastasis identification were not different for reduced dose PCCT 70-keV images and EID-CT ( P = 0.06-0.69). κ Value for metastasis identification was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.00) with PCCT and 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.98) with EID-CT.
Reduced intravenous contrast portal venous phase PCCT 70-keV images had similar attenuation and image quality as EID-CT with weight-based dosing. Metastases were identified with near-perfect agreement in reduced dose PCCT 70-keV images.
本研究旨在通过定量和定性分析比较基于体重的对比剂量减少 20cc 的门静脉期光子计数 CT(PCCT)与基于体重的剂量的能量积分探测器 CT(EID-CT)。
回顾性分析 2023 年 5 月 1 日至 2023 年 8 月 10 日期间接受基于体重的对比剂量减少门静脉期 PCCT 的 50 例成人患者,以及之前接受基于体重的对比剂量 EID-CT 的患者。从 70keV PCCT 和 EID-CT 的 4 个肝段、主门静脉和右门静脉以及双侧椎旁肌肉的感兴趣区域测量获得体素值(HU)和噪声(HU 的标准差)。计算信噪比和对比噪声比。三位腹部放射科医生使用 5 分李克特量表对总体图像质量、肝增强和转移灶识别的置信度进行定性评估。读者还记录了肝转移的存在/不存在。使用配对 t 检验比较定量变量,使用 Bonferroni 调整的.0016 水平进行多次比较。使用有序逻辑回归评估定性评估。使用 Fleiss' κ 计算肝转移的读者间一致性。
共纳入 50 例患者(32 例女性;平均[标准差]年龄,64[13]岁)。与 EID-CT 相比,减少对比剂量门静脉期 PCCT 时肝 HU、门静脉 HU、噪声以及信噪比和对比噪声比均无显著差异(所有 P 值均>0.0016)。减少剂量 PCCT 70keV 图像和 EID-CT 的图像质量、肝增强程度和转移灶识别的置信度无差异(P=0.06-0.69)。PCCT 对转移灶的识别的 κ 值为 0.86(95%置信区间,0.70-1.00),EID-CT 为 0.78(95%置信区间,0.59-0.98)。
减少静脉对比剂门静脉期 70keV PCCT 图像的衰减和图像质量与基于体重的剂量 EID-CT 相似。减少剂量的 70keV PCCT 图像中,转移灶的识别具有近乎完美的一致性。