Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How accurate and precise are CT based measurements of iodine concentration? A comparison of the minimum detectable concentration difference among single source and dual source dual energy CT in a phantom study

  • Computed Tomography
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the impact of scan- and patient-related factors on the error and the minimum detectable difference in iodine concentration among different generations of single-source (SS) fast kV-switching and dual-source (DS) dual-energy CT (DECT).

Methods

Lesions having eight different iodine concentrations (0.2–4 mgI/mL) were emulated in a 3D-printed phantom of medium and large size. Each combination of concentration and size was scanned in dual-energy mode on four different SS and DS DECTs. Radiation doses were 7 and 10 mGy (medium size) and 10, 13, and 16 mGy (large size). Iodine maps were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and vendor-specific iterative reconstruction algorithms (IRs). Absolute error of iodine quantification (E) was measured. Multivariate regression models determined the influence of CT scanner, iodine concentration, phantom size, radiation dose, and reconstruction algorithm on E. The minimum detectable difference in iodine concentration (ICmin) under the same imaging conditions (intra-conditional) and among different imaging conditions (inter-conditional) was calculated.

Results

The error was significantly lower in current than in previous DECT generations (p < 0.001). For all CT scanner conditions, the error was significantly higher with increasing phantom size and decreasing radiation dose (p < 0.001). Iodine concentration only significantly affected the error for SS DECT (p < 0.001). ICmin depended on patient- and scan-related factors and ranged from 0.4 to 1.5 mgI/mL.

Conclusions

Patient- and scan-related factors have a significant impact on the error and minimum detectable difference in iodine concentration within and among SS fast kV-switching and DS DECT.

Key Points

• Patient- and scan-related factors have a significant impact on the error and minimum detectable difference in dual-energy CT-based iodine quantification.

• Third-generation DECTs outperformed second-generation scanners for both single-source and dual-source dual-energy CT.

• The minimum intra- and inter-conditional detectable difference in iodine concentration ranged from 0.4 to 1.5 mg iodine/mL.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

DECT:

Dual-energy computed tomography

DECT-IQ:

Dual-energy CT-based iodine quantification

DS:

Dual-source

FBP:

Filtered back projection

ICmin :

Minimum detectable difference in iodine concentration

IR:

Iterative reconstruction algorithm

IRB:

Institutional review board

RCC:

Renal cell carcinoma

SS:

Single-source

References

  1. Graser A, Becker CR, Staehler M et al (2010) Single-phase dual-energy CT allows for characterization of renal masses as benign or malignant. Invest Radiol 45:399–405

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chandarana H, Megibow AJ, Cohen BA et al (2011) Iodine quantification with dual-energy CT: phantom study and preliminary experience with renal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:W693–W700

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Song KD, Kim CK, Park BK, Kim B (2011) Utility of iodine overlay technique and virtual unenhanced images for the characterization of renal masses by dual-energy CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:W1076–W1082

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ascenti G, Mileto A, Krauss B et al (2013) Distinguishing enhancing from nonenhancing renal masses with dual-source dual-energy CT: iodine quantification versus standard enhancement measurements. Eur Radiol 23:2288–2295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dai X, Schlemmer HP, Schmidt B et al (2013) Quantitative therapy response assessment by volumetric iodine-uptake measurement: initial experience in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib. Eur J Radiol 82:327–334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mileto A, Marin D, Ramirez-Giraldo JC et al (2014) Accuracy of contrast-enhanced dual-energy MDCT for the assessment of iodine uptake in renal lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:W466–W474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chang S, Hur J, Im DJ et al (2016) Dual-energy CT-based iodine quantification for differentiating pulmonary artery sarcoma from pulmonary thromboembolism: a pilot study. Eur Radiol 26:3162–3170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Martin SS, Weidinger S, Czwikla R et al (2018) Iodine and fat quantification for differentiation of adrenal gland adenomas from metastases using third-generation dual-source dual-energy computed tomography. Invest Radiol 53:173–178

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rizzo S, Radice D, Femia M et al (2018) Metastatic and non-metastatic lymph nodes: quantification and different distribution of iodine uptake assessed by dual-energy CT. Eur Radiol 28:760–769

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fan S, Li X, Zheng L, Hu D, Ren X, Ye Z (2017) Correlations between the iodine concentrations from dual energy computed tomography and molecular markers Ki-67 and HIF-1alpha in rectal cancer: a preliminary study. Eur J Radiol 96:109–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Li J, Fang M, Wang R et al (2018) Diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy CT-based nomograms to predict lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5483-2

  12. Baxa J, Matouskova T, Krakorova G et al (2016) Dual-phase dual-energy CT in patients treated with Erlotinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: possible benefits of iodine quantification in response assessment. Eur Radiol 26:2828–2836

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hellbach K, Sterzik A, Sommer W et al (2017) Dual energy CT allows for improved characterization of response to antiangiogenic treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. Eur Radiol 27:2532–2537

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Marin D, Davis D, Roy Choudhury K et al (2017) Characterization of small focal renal lesions: diagnostic accuracy with single-phase contrast-enhanced dual-energy ct with material attenuation analysis compared with conventional attenuation measurements. Radiology 284:737–747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mileto A, Marin D, Alfaro-Cordoba M et al (2014) Iodine quantification to distinguish clear cell from papillary renal cell carcinoma at dual-energy multidetector CT: a multireader diagnostic performance study. Radiology 273:813–820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Feuerlein S, Heye TJ, Bashir MR, Boll DT (2012) Iodine quantification using dual-energy multidetector computed tomography imaging: phantom study assessing the impact of iterative reconstruction schemes and patient habitus on accuracy. Invest Radiol 47:656–661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Koonce JD, Vliegenthart R, Schoepf UJ et al (2014) Accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography for the measurement of iodine concentration using cardiac CT protocols: validation in a phantom model. Eur Radiol 24:512–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Faby S, Kuchenbecker S, Sawall S et al (2015) Performance of today's dual energy CT and future multi energy CT in virtual non-contrast imaging and in iodine quantification: a simulation study. Med Phys 42:4349–4366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Euler A, Parakh A, Falkowski AL et al (2016) Initial results of a single-source dual-energy computed tomography technique using a split-filter: assessment of image quality, radiation dose, and accuracy of dual-energy applications in an in vitro and in vivo study. Invest Radiol 51:491–498

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Jacobsen MC, Schellingerhout D, Wood CA et al (2017) Intermanufacturer comparison of dual-energy CT iodine quantification and monochromatic attenuation: a phantom study. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170896:170896

  21. Pelgrim GJ, van Hamersvelt RW, Willemink MJ et al (2017) Accuracy of iodine quantification using dual energy CT in latest generation dual source and dual layer CT. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4752-9

  22. Kim H, Goo JM, Kang CK, Chae KJ, Park CM (2018) Comparison of iodine density measurement among dual-energy computed tomography scanners from 3 vendors. Invest Radiol 53:321–327

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sauter AP, Kopp FK, Münzel D et al (2018) Accuracy of iodine quantification in dual-layer spectral CT: influence of iterative reconstruction, patient habitus and tube parameters. Eur J Radiol 102:83–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Delgado Sánchez-Gracián C, Oca Pernas R, Trinidad López C et al (2016) Quantitative myocardial perfusion with stress dual-energy CT: iodine concentration differences between normal and ischemic or necrotic myocardium. Initial experience. Eur Radiol 26:3199–3207

  25. Martin SS, Czwikla R, Wichmann JL et al (2018) Dual-energy CT-based iodine quantification to differentiate abdominal malignant lymphoma from lymph node metastasis. Eur J Radiol 105:255–260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kaltenbach B, Wichmann JL, Pfeifer S et al (2018) Iodine quantification to distinguish hepatic neuroendocrine tumour metastasis from hepatocellular carcinoma at dual-source dual-energy liver CT. Eur J Radiol 105:20–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Li Y, Shi G, Wang S, Wang S, Wu R (2013) Iodine quantification with dual-energy CT: phantom study and preliminary experience with VX2 residual tumour in rabbits after radiofrequency ablation. Br J Radiol 86:20130143

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang D, Li X, Liu B (2011) Objective characterization of GE discovery CT750 HD scanner: gemstone spectral imaging mode. Med Phys 38:1178–1188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gao SY, Zhang XY, Wei W et al (2016) Identification of benign and malignant thyroid nodules by in vivo iodine concentration measurement using single-source dual energy CT: a retrospective diagnostic accuracy study. Medicine (Baltimore) 95:e4816

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Cristian T. Badea and Yi Qi from the Center of In-Vivo Microscopy of Duke University Medical Center for assistance to create iodinated solutions.

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, 2301 Erwin Road, Box 3808, Durham, NC, 27710, USA

    André Euler, Maciej A. Mazurowski & Rendon C. Nelson

  2. Carl E. Ravin Advanced Imaging Laboratories, Durham, NC, USA

    Justin Solomon & Ehsan Samei

Authors
  1. André Euler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Justin Solomon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maciej A. Mazurowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ehsan Samei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rendon C. Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to André Euler.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Andre Euler.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies:

Rendon C. Nelson is a medical consultant to GE Healthcare.

Andre Euler is a research fellow supported by GE Healthcare and the Swiss Society of Radiology

Ehsan Samei is the recipient of research funding from Siemens Healthineers and GE Healthcare for projects unrelated to this study.

Statistics and biometry

Maciej A. Mazurowski kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.

Informed consent

Approval from the institutional animal care committee was not required because of the design as a phantom study.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was not required because of the design as a phantom study.

Methodology

• prospective

• experimental

• performed at one institution

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 108 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 904 kb)

ESM 3

(DOCX 123 kb)

ESM 4

(DOCX 16628 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Euler, A., Solomon, J., Mazurowski, M.A. et al. How accurate and precise are CT based measurements of iodine concentration? A comparison of the minimum detectable concentration difference among single source and dual source dual energy CT in a phantom study. Eur Radiol 29, 2069–2078 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5736-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5736-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation