Advertisement

Variation of degree of stenosis quantification using different energy level with dual energy CT scanner

  • Luca SabaEmail author
  • Giovanni Maria Argioas
  • Pierleone Lucatelli
  • Francesco Lavra
  • Jasjit S. Suri
  • Max Wintermark
Diagnostic Neuroradiology

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the variation in the quantification of the carotid degree of stenosis (DoS) with a dual energy computed tomography (CT), using different energy levels during the image reconstruction.

Methods

In this retrospective study, 53 subjects (37 males; mean age 67 ± 11 years; age range 47–83 years) studied with a multi-energy CT scanner were included. Datasets were reconstructed on a dedicated workstation and from the CT raw data multiple datasets were generated at the following monochromatic energy levels: 66, 70, 77, and 86 kilo-electronvolt (keV). Two radiologists independently performed all measurements for quantification of the degree of stenosis. Wilcoxon test was used to test the differences between the Hounsifield unit (HU) values in the plaques at different keV.

Results

The Wilcoxon analysis showed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.001) in the DoS assessment among the different keVs selected. The Bland-Altman analysis showed that the DoS difference had a linear relation with the keV difference (the bigger is the difference in keV, the bigger is the variation in DoS) and that for different keVs, the difference in DoS is reduced with its increase.

Conclusion

A standardization in the use of the energy level during the image reconstruction should be considered.

Keywords

CT Dual energy CT Carotid artery 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Saba L, Yuan C, Hatsukami TS, Balu N, Qiao Y, DeMarco JK, Saam T, Moody AR, Li D, Matouk CC, Johnson MH, Jäger HR, Mossa-Basha M, Kooi ME, Fan Z, Saloner D, Wintermark M, Mikulis DJ, Wasserman BA (2018) Vessel Wall Imaging Study Group of the American Society of Neuroradiology. Carotid artery wall imaging: perspective and guidelines from the ASNR Vessel Wall Imaging Study Group and Expert Consensus Recommendations of the American Society of Neuroradiology. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol.  https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5488
  2. 2.
    Saba L, Mallarini G (2008) MDCTA of carotid plaque degree of stenosis: evaluation of interobserver agreement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190(1):W41–W46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saba L, Mallarini G (2010) A comparison between NASCET and ECST methods in the study of carotids: evaluation using multi-detector-row CT angiography. Eur J Radiol 76(1):42–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.04.064 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tawfik AM, Kerl JM, Razek AA, Bauer RW, Nour-Eldin NE, Vogl TJ, Mack MG (2011) Image quality and radiation dose of dual-energy CT of the head and neck compared with a standard 120-kVp acquisition. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 32(11):1994–1999.  https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A2654 Epub 2011 Sep 8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Machida H, Tanaka I, Fukui R, Shen Y, Ishikawa T, Tate E, Ueno E (2016) Dual-energy spectral CT: various clinical vascular applications. Radiographics 36(4):1215–1232.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2016150185 ReviewCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shinohara Y, Sakamoto M, Kuya K, Kishimoto J, Iwata N, Ohta Y, Fujii S, Watanabe T, Ogawa T (2015) Assessment of carotid plaque composition using fast-kV switching dual-energy CT with gemstone detector: comparison with extracorporeal and virtual histology-intravascular ultrasound. Neuroradiology 57(9):889–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mannelli L, Mitsumori LM, Ferguson M, Xu D, Chu B, Branch KR, Shuman WP, Yuan C (2013) Changes in measured size of atherosclerotic plaque calcifications in dual-energy CT of ex vivo carotid endarterectomy specimens: effect of monochromatic keV image reconstructions. Eur Radiol 23(2):367–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saba L, Argiolas GM, Siotto P, Piga M (2013) Carotid artery plaque characterization using CT multienergy imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 34(4):855–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Agostini A, Mahmood U, Erdi Y, Borgheresi A, Ragucci M, Sawan P, Ryan D, Laino ME, Corrias G, Mannelli L (2018) Quantification of iodine concentration using single-source dual-energy computed tomography in a calf liver. J Comput Assist Tomogr 42(2):222–229PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marin D, Boll DT, Mileto A, Nelson RC (2014) State of the art: dual-energy CT of the abdomen. Radiology 271(2):327–342.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14131480 ReviewCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Riffel P, Haubenreisser H, Meyer M, Sudarski S, Morelli JN, Schmidt B, Schoenberg SO, Henzler T (2016) Carotid dual-energy CT angiography: evaluation of low keV calculated monoenergetic datasets by means of a frequency-split approach for noise reduction at low keV levels. Eur J Radiol 85(4):720–725.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.01.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Korn A, Fenchel M, Bender B, Danz S, Thomas C, Ketelsen D, Claussen CD, Moonis G, Krauss B, Heuschmid M, Ernemann U, Brodoefel H (2013) High-pitch dual-source CT angiography of supra-aortic arteries: assessment of image quality and radiation dose. Neuroradiology 55(4):423–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mahmood U, Horvat N, Horvat JV, Ryan D, Gao Y, Carollo G, DeOcampo R, Do RK, Katz S, Gerst S, Schmidtlein CR, Dauer L, Erdi Y, Mannelli L (2018) Rapid switching kVp dual energy CT: value of reconstructed dual energy CT images and organ dose assessment in multiphasic liver CT exams. Eur J Radiol 102:102–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.02.022 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mannelli L, MacDonald L, Mancini M, Ferguson M, Shuman WP, Ragucci M, Monti S, Xu D, Yuan C, Mitsumori LM (2015) Dual energy computed tomography quantification of carotid plaques calcification: comparison between monochromatic and polychromatic energies with pathology correlation. Eur Radiol 25(5):1238–1246.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3523-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zopfs D, Lennartz S, Laukamp K, Große Hokamp N, Mpotsaris A, Maintz D, Borggrefe J, Neuhaus V (2018) Improved depiction of atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis in virtual monoenergetic reconstructions of venous phase dual-layer computed tomography in comparison to polyenergetic reconstructions. Eur J Radiol 100:36–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.01.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neuhaus V, Große Hokamp N, Abdullayev N, Maus V, Kabbasch C, Mpotsaris A, Maintz D, Borggrefe J (2017) Comparison of virtual monoenergetic and polyenergetic images reconstructed from dual-layer detector CT angiography of the head and neck. Eur Radiol 28(3):1102–1110.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5081-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leithner D, Mahmoudi S, Wichmann JL, Martin SS, Lenga L, Albrecht MH, Booz C, Arendt CT, Beeres M, D'Angelo T, Bodelle B, Vogl TJ, Scholtz JE (2018) Evaluation of virtual monoenergetic imaging algorithms for dual-energy carotid and intracerebral CT angiography: effects on image quality, artefacts and diagnostic performance for the detection of stenosis. Eur J Radiol 99:111–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.12.024 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leithner D, Wichmann JL, Mahmoudi S, Martin SS, Albrecht MH, Vogl TJ, Scholtz JE (2018) Diagnostic yield of 90-kVp low-tube-voltage carotid and intracerebral CT-angiography: effects on radiation dose, image quality and diagnostic performance for the detection of carotid stenosis. Br J Radiol 91:20170927.  https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170927 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saba L, Mallarin G (2009) Window settings for the study of calcified carotid plaques with multidetector CT angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 30:1445–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Claves JL, Wise SW, Hopper KD (1997) Evaluation of contrast densities in the diagnosis of carotid stenosis by CT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169:569–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stehli J, Clerc OF, Fuchs TA, Possner M, Gräni C, Benz DC, Buechel RR, Kaufmann PA (2016) Impact of monochromatic coronary computed tomography angiography from single-source dual-energy CT on coronary stenosis quantification. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 10(2):135–140.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2015.12.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kau T, Eicher W, Reiterer C, Niedermayer M, Rabitsch E, Senft B, Hausegger KA (2011) Dual-energy CT angiography in peripheral arterial occlusive disease-accuracy of maximum intensity projections in clinical routine and subgroup analysis. Eur Radiol 21(8):1677–1686.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2099-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyAzienda Ospedaliero Universitaria (A.O.U.) di CagliariCagliariItaly
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyAOB di CagliariCagliariItaly
  3. 3.Department of Radiological, Oncological and Anatomopathological Sciences-Radiology‘Sapienza’ University of RomeRomeItaly
  4. 4.Diagnostic and Monitoring DivisionAtheroPoint™ LLCRosevilleUSA
  5. 5.Department of Electrical EngineeringUniversity of Idaho (Affl.)MoscowUSA
  6. 6.Department of Neuroimaging and NeurointerventionStanford University Medical CenterStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations