Dual-energy CT increases reader confidence in the detection and diagnosis of hypoattenuating pancreatic lesions
| LEADER | caa a22 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 605494290 | ||
| 003 | CHVBK | ||
| 005 | 20210128100525.0 | ||
| 007 | cr unu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 210128e20150401xx s 000 0 eng | ||
| 024 | 7 | 0 | |a 10.1007/s00261-014-0254-2 |2 doi |
| 035 | |a (NATIONALLICENCE)springer-10.1007/s00261-014-0254-2 | ||
| 245 | 0 | 0 | |a Dual-energy CT increases reader confidence in the detection and diagnosis of hypoattenuating pancreatic lesions |h [Elektronische Daten] |c [Brendan Quiney, Alison Harris, Patrick McLaughlin, Savvas Nicolaou] |
| 520 | 3 | |a Purpose: To prospectively compare detection and reader confidence of pancreatic lesions using a standard multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) imaging protocol to a dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) imaging protocol with additional virtual non-contrast series. Methods: 60 subjects imaged for suspected or known pancreatic lesions were included. Subjects underwent pancreatic MDCT including non-contrast, pancreatic phase, and portal venous phase (PVP). The PVP was performed in dual energy mode. Virtual non-contrast and blended 120kVp weighted images were created from the DECT data. Overall noise and absolute attenuation differences of pancreatic lesions and normal pancreatic tissue were measured. Images were read by two staff radiologists blinded to the underlying diagnosis. MDCT and DECT scans were reviewed separately to evaluate image quality and level of confidence in diagnosis of a pancreatic lesion. Results: Image quality was ranked excellent for 90% and 95% of the 120kVp studies and 93% and 95% of the 100kVp studies by readers 1 and 2, respectively. VNC was ranked sufficient quality or better by both readers. Average attenuation difference was 74HU (120kVp) and 71HU (100kVp). Average noise was 11.31HU (120kVp) and 15.89HU (100kVp). No lesions were missed by either approach. There was increased confidence in diagnostic interpretation in 14% (±9% [95% CI]) and 9% (±7% [95% CI]) of DECT scans compared to MDCT. Conclusions: DECT compared to MDCT pancreatic imaging leads to increased reader confidence with identical diagnostic sensitivity for pathologically proven cases. This approach could be implemented as a single phase acquisition study with calculated VNC leading to a significant dose savings to the patient. | |
| 540 | |a Springer Science+Business Media New York, 2014 | ||
| 690 | 7 | |a Pancreas |2 nationallicence | |
| 690 | 7 | |a Pancreatic adenocarcinoma |2 nationallicence | |
| 690 | 7 | |a Dual-energy computed tomography |2 nationallicence | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Quiney |D Brendan |u Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 3350-950W 10th Avenue, V5Z 4E3, Vancouver, BC, Canada |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Harris |D Alison |u Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 3350-950W 10th Avenue, V5Z 4E3, Vancouver, BC, Canada |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a McLaughlin |D Patrick |u Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 3350-950W 10th Avenue, V5Z 4E3, Vancouver, BC, Canada |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Nicolaou |D Savvas |u Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 3350-950W 10th Avenue, V5Z 4E3, Vancouver, BC, Canada |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | |t Abdominal Imaging |d Springer US; http://www.springer-ny.com |g 40/4(2015-04-01), 859-864 |x 0942-8925 |q 40:4<859 |1 2015 |2 40 |o 261 | |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0254-2 |q text/html |z Onlinezugriff via DOI |
| 898 | |a BK010053 |b XK010053 |c XK010000 | ||
| 900 | 7 | |a Metadata rights reserved |b Springer special CC-BY-NC licence |2 nationallicence | |
| 908 | |D 1 |a research-article |2 jats | ||
| 949 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |F NATIONALLICENCE |b NL-springer | ||
| 950 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |P 856 |E 40 |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0254-2 |q text/html |z Onlinezugriff via DOI | ||
| 950 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |P 700 |E 1- |a Quiney |D Brendan |u Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 3350-950W 10th Avenue, V5Z 4E3, Vancouver, BC, Canada |4 aut | ||
| 950 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |P 700 |E 1- |a Harris |D Alison |u Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 3350-950W 10th Avenue, V5Z 4E3, Vancouver, BC, Canada |4 aut | ||
| 950 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |P 700 |E 1- |a McLaughlin |D Patrick |u Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 3350-950W 10th Avenue, V5Z 4E3, Vancouver, BC, Canada |4 aut | ||
| 950 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |P 700 |E 1- |a Nicolaou |D Savvas |u Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 3350-950W 10th Avenue, V5Z 4E3, Vancouver, BC, Canada |4 aut | ||
| 950 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |P 773 |E 0- |t Abdominal Imaging |d Springer US; http://www.springer-ny.com |g 40/4(2015-04-01), 859-864 |x 0942-8925 |q 40:4<859 |1 2015 |2 40 |o 261 | ||