Advertisement

Virtual monoenergetic imaging in rapid kVp-switching dual-energy CT (DECT) of the abdomen: impact on CT texture analysis

  • Vinit Baliyan
  • Hamed Kordbacheh
  • Bimal Parameswaran
  • Balaji Ganeshan
  • Dushyant Sahani
  • Avinash Kambadakone
Article
  • 142 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To study the impact of keV levels of virtual monoenergetic images generated from rapid kVp-switching dual-energy CT (rsDECT) on CT texture analysis (CTTA).

Methods

This study included 30 consecutive patients (59.3 ± 12 years; range 34–77 years; 17M:13F) who underwent portal venous phase abdominal CT on a rsDECT scanner. Axial 5-mm monoenergetic images at 5 energy levels (40/50/60/70/80 keV) were created and CTTA of liver was performed. CTTA comprised a filtration-histogram technique with different spatial scale filter (SSF) values (0–6). CTTA quantification at each SSF value included histogram-based statistical parameters such as mean intensity, standard deviation (SD), entropy, mean of positive pixels (MPP), skewness, and kurtosis. The values were compared using repeated measures ANOVA.

Results

Among the different CTTA metrics, mean intensity (at SSF > 0), skewness, and kurtosis did not show variability whereas entropy, MPP, and SD varied with different keV levels. There was no change in skewness and kurtosis values for all 6 filters (p > 0.05). Mean intensity showed no change for filters 2–6 (p > 0.05). Mean intensity at SSF = 0 i.e., mean attenuations were 91.2 ± 2.9, 108.7 ± 3.6, 136.1 ± 4.7, 179.8 ± 6.9, and 250.5 ± 10.1 HU for 80, 70, 60, 50, and 40 keV images, respectively demonstrating significant variability (decrease) with increasing keV levels (p < 0.001). Entropy, MPP, and SD values showed a statistically significant decrease with increasing keV of monoenergetic images on all 6 filters (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The energy levels of monoenergetic images have variable impact on the different CTTA parameters, with no significant change in skewness, kurtosis, and filtered mean intensity whereas significant decrease in mean attenuation, entropy, MPP, and SD values with increasing energy levels.

Keywords

Dual energy CT CT texture analysis Virtual monoenergetic imaging 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosure

Balaji Ganeshan: director, part-time employee, and shareholder of Feedback Plc (Cambridge, England, UK), company that develops and markets the TexRAD texture analysis algorithm described in this manuscript. Dushyant Sahani: GE healthcare research grant, royalties from Elsevier.

Funding

This study was not funded.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of Interest

Balaji Ganeshan is director, part-time employee, and shareholder of Feedback Plc (Cambridge, England, UK), company that develops and markets the TexRAD texture analysis algorithm described in this manuscript. Dushyant Sahani has GE healthcare research grant, royalties from Elsevier, other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S, et al. (2012) Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med 366(10):883CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davnall F, Yip CSP, Ljungqvist G, et al. (2012) Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: an emerging imaging tool for clinical practice? Insights Imaging. 3(6):573–589CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ganeshan B, Miles KA (2013) Quantifying tumour heterogeneity with CT. Cancer Imaging Off Publ Int Cancer Imaging Soc. 26(13):140–149Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Armato SG, Li F, Giger ML, et al. (2002) Lung cancer: performance of automated lung nodule detection applied to cancers missed in a CT screening program. Radiology. 225(3):685–692CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Armato SG, Giger ML, MacMahon H (2001) Automated detection of lung nodules in CT scans: preliminary results. Med Phys. 28(8):1552–1561CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Giger ML, Bae KT, MacMahon H (1994) Computerized detection of pulmonary nodules in computed tomography images. Invest Radiol. 29(4):459–465CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Halligan S, Mallett S, Altman DG, et al. (2011) Incremental benefit of computer-aided detection when used as a second and concurrent reader of CT colonographic data: multiobserver study. Radiology. 258(2):469–476CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lawrence EM, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Robbins JB (2010) Colorectal polyps: stand-alone performance of computer-aided detection in a large asymptomatic screening population. Radiology. 256(3):791–798CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li J, Van Uitert R, Yao J, et al. (2008) Wavelet method for CT colonography computer-aided polyp detection. Med Phys. 35(8):3527–3538CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gletsos M, Mougiakakou SG, Matsopoulos GK, et al. (2003) A computer-aided diagnostic system to characterize CT focal liver lesions: design and optimization of a neural network classifier. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed Publ IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 7(3):153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huang Y-L, Chen J-H, Shen W-C (2006) Diagnosis of hepatic tumors with texture analysis in nonenhanced computed tomography images. Acad Radiol. 13(6):713–720CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kido S, Kuriyama K, Higashiyama M, Kasugai T, Kuroda C (2002) Fractal analysis of small peripheral pulmonary nodules in thin-section CT: evaluation of the lung-nodule interfaces. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 26(4):573–578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klein HM, Klose KC, Eisele T, et al. (1993) The diagnosis of focal liver lesions by the texture analysis of dynamic computed tomograms. ROFO Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Nuklearmed. 159(1):10–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Way TW, Sahiner B, Chan H-P, et al. (2009) Computer-aided diagnosis of pulmonary nodules on CT scans: improvement of classification performance with nodule surface features. Med Phys. 36(7):3086–3098CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ganeshan B, Skogen K, Pressney I, Coutroubis D, Miles K (2012) Tumour heterogeneity in oesophageal cancer assessed by CT texture analysis: preliminary evidence of an association with tumour metabolism, stage, and survival. Clin Radiol. 67(2):157–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ganeshan B, Abaleke S, Young RCD, Chatwin CR, Miles KA (2010) Texture analysis of non-small cell lung cancer on unenhanced computed tomography: initial evidence for a relationship with tumour glucose metabolism and stage. Cancer Imaging Off Publ Int Cancer Imaging Soc. 6(10):137–143Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ganeshan B, Panayiotou E, Burnand K, Dizdarevic S, Miles K (2012) Tumour heterogeneity in non-small cell lung carcinoma assessed by CT texture analysis: a potential marker of survival. Eur Radiol. 22(4):796–802CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haider MA, Vosough A, Khalvati F, et al. (2017) CT texture analysis: a potential tool for prediction of survival in patients with metastatic clear cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib. Cancer Imaging. 17:4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ng F, Ganeshan B, Kozarski R, Miles KA, Goh V (2013) Assessment of primary colorectal cancer heterogeneity by using whole-tumor texture analysis: contrast-enhanced CT texture as a biomarker of 5-year survival. Radiology. 266(1):177–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ozkan E, West A, Dedelow JA, et al. (2015) CT gray-level texture analysis as a quantitative imaging biomarker of epidermal growth factor receptor mutation status in adenocarcinoma of the lung. Am J Roentgenol. 205(5):1016–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shac Y, Liu L, Wang F, et al. (2008) Quantitative evaluation of CT-MRI images of various tumors with expansive or infiltrative growth pattern. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 88(21):1503–1506PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Win T, Miles KA, Janes SM, et al. (2013) Tumor heterogeneity and permeability as measured on the CT component of PET/CT predict survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 19(13):3591–3599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hayano K, Tian F, Kambadakone AR, et al. (2015) Texture analysis of non-contrast enhanced CT for assessing angiogenesis and survival of soft tissue sarcoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 39(4):607–612CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goh V, Ganeshan B, Nathan P, et al. (2011) Assessment of response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in metastatic renal cell cancer: CT texture as a predictive biomarker. Radiology. 261(1):165–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ahn SJ, Kim JH, Park SJ, Han JK (2016) Prediction of the therapeutic response after FOLFOX and FOLFIRI treatment for patients with liver metastasis from colorectal cancer using computerized CT texture analysis. Eur J Radiol. 85(10):1867–1874CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    De Cecco CN, Ganeshan B, Ciolina M, et al. (2015) Texture analysis as imaging biomarker of tumoral response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer patients studied with 3-T magnetic resonance. Invest Radiol. 50(4):239–245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rao S-X, Lambregts DM, Schnerr RS, et al. (2016) CT texture analysis in colorectal liver metastases: A better way than size and volume measurements to assess response to chemotherapy? United Eur Gastroenterol J. 4(2):257–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ravanelli M, Farina D, Morassi M, et al. (2013) Texture analysis of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) on contrast-enhanced computed tomography: prediction of the response to the first-line chemotherapy. Eur Radiol. 23(12):3450–3455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yip SSF, Coroller TP, Sanford NN, et al. (2016) Use of registration-based contour propagation in texture analysis for esophageal cancer pathologic response prediction. Phys Med Biol. 61(2):906–922CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tian F, Hayano K, Kambadakone AR, Sahani DV (2015) Response assessment to neoadjuvant therapy in soft tissue sarcomas: using CT texture analysis in comparison to tumor size, density, and perfusion. Abdom Imaging. 40(6):1705–1712CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wu J, Gong G, Cui Y, Li R (2016) Intratumor partitioning and texture analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI identifies relevant tumor subregions to predict pathological response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI. 44(5):1107–1115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Teruel JR, Heldahl MG, Goa PE, et al. (2014) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI texture analysis for pretreatment prediction of clinical and pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. NMR Biomed. 27(8):887–896CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Michoux N, Van den Broeck S, Lacoste L, et al. (2015) Texture analysis on MR images helps predicting non-response to NAC in breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 5(15):574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ahmed A, Gibbs P, Pickles M, Turnbull L (2013) Texture analysis in assessment and prediction of chemotherapy response in breast cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI. 38(1):89–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Parakh A, Baliyan V, Sahani DV (2017) Dual-energy CT in focal and diffuse liver disease. Curr Radiol Rep. 5(8):35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Parakh A, Patino M, Sahani DV. Spectral CT/dual-energy CT. In Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2017 [cited 2017 Apr 3]. p. 1–21. (Medical Radiology). http://link.springer.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/chapter/10.1007/174_2017_28
  37. 37.
    Patel BN, Alexander L, Allen B, et al. (2017) Dual-energy CT workflow: multi-institutional consensus on standardization of abdominopelvic MDCT protocols. Abdom Radiol. 42(3):676–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mileto A, Barina A, Marin D, et al. (2015) Virtual monochromatic images from dual-energy multidetector CT: variance in CT numbers from the same lesion between single-source projection-based and dual-source image-based implementations. Radiology. 279(1):269–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ganeshan B, Goh V, Mandeville HC, et al. (2013) Non-small cell lung cancer: histopathologic correlates for texture parameters at CT. Radiology. 266(1):326–336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Miles KA, Ganeshan B, Hayball MP (2013) CT texture analysis using the filtration-histogram method: what do the measurements mean? Cancer Imaging Off Publ Int Cancer Imaging Soc. 13(3):400–406Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hsu CC-T, Kwan GNC, Singh D, Pratap J, Watkins TW. Principles and clinical application of dual-energy computed tomography in the evaluation of cerebrovascular disease. J Clin Imaging Sci [Internet]. 2016 Jun 29 [cited 2017 Jun 14];6. : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4964665/
  42. 42.
    Kaza RK, Ananthakrishnan L, Kambadakone A, Platt JF (2017) Update of dual-energy CT applications in the genitourinary tract. Am J Roentgenol. 208(6):1185–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Roele ED, Timmer VCML, Vaassen LAA, van Kroonenburgh AMJL, Postma AA. Dual-energy CT in head and neck imaging. Curr Radiol Rep [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2017 Jun 14];5(5). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5371622/
  44. 44.
    Liguori C, Frauenfelder G, Massaroni C, et al. (2015) Emerging clinical applications of computed tomography. Med Devices Auckl NZ. 5(8):265–278Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    De Cecco CN, Boll DT, Bolus DN, et al. (2017) White paper of the society of computed body tomography and magnetic resonance on dual-energy CT, part 4: abdominal and pelvic applications. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 41(1):8–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ganeshan B, Miles KA, Young RCD, Chatwin CR (2007) In search of biologic correlates for liver texture on portal-phase CT. Acad Radiol. 14(9):1058–1068CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ganeshan B, Miles KA, Young RCD, Chatwin CR (2009) Texture analysis in non-contrast enhanced CT: impact of malignancy on texture in apparently disease-free areas of the liver. Eur J Radiol. 70(1):101–110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Miles KA, Ganeshan B, Griffiths MR, Young RCD, Chatwin CR (2009) Colorectal cancer: texture analysis of portal phase hepatic CT images as a potential marker of survival. Radiology. 250(2):444–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Agrawal MD, Pinho DF, Kulkarni NM, et al. (2014) Oncologic applications of dual-energy CT in the abdomen. RadioGraphics. 34(3):589–612CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yu L, Leng S, McCollough CH (2012) Dual-energy CT-based monochromatic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 199(5 Suppl):S9–S15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Imaging Associates, Eastern HealthBox HillAustralia
  3. 3.Institute of Nuclear MedicineUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations