Skip to main content

Assessment of an Advanced Monoenergetic Reconstruction Technique in Dual-Energy Computed Tomography of Head and Neck Cancer

European Radiology volume 25, pages 2493–2501 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

Objectives

To define optimal keV settings for advanced monoenergetic (Mono+) dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).

Methods

DECT data of 44 patients (34 men, mean age 55.5 ± 16.0 years) with histopathologically confirmed SCC were reconstructed as 40, 55, 70 keV Mono + and M_0.3 (30 % 80 kV) linearly blended series. Attenuation of tumour, sternocleidomastoid muscle, internal jugular vein, submandibular gland, and noise were measured. Three radiologists with >3 years of experience subjectively assessed image quality, lesion delineation, image sharpness, and noise.

Results

The highest lesion attenuation was shown for 40 keV series (248.1 ± 94.1 HU), followed by 55 keV (150.2 ± 55.5 HU; P = 0.001). Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) at 40 keV (19.09 ± 13.84) was significantly superior to all other reconstructions (55 keV, 10.25 ± 9.11; 70 keV, 7.68 ± 6.31; M_0.3, 5.49 ± 3.28; all P < 0.005). Subjective image quality was highest for 55 keV images (4.53; κ = 0.38, P = 0.003), followed by 40 keV (4.14; κ = 0.43, P < 0.001) and 70 keV reconstructions (4.06; κ = 0.32, P = 0.005), all superior (P < 0.004) to linear blending M_0.3 (3.81; κ = 0.280, P = 0.056).

Conclusions

Mono + DECT at low keV levels significantly improves CNR and subjective image quality in patients with head and neck SCC, as tumour CNR peaks at 40 keV, and 55 keV images are preferred by observers.

Key Points

• Mono + DECT combines increased contrast with reduced image noise, unlike linearly blended images.

• Mono + DECT imaging allows for superior CNR and subjective image quality.

• Head and neck tumour contrast-to-noise ratio peaks at 40 keV.

• 55 keV images are preferred over all other series by observers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

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

References

  1. Sadick M, Schoenberg SO, Hoermann K, Sadick H (2012) Current oncologic concepts and emerging techniques for imaging of head and neck squamous cell cancer. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 11:Doc08

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hermans R (2006) Staging of laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer: value of imaging studies. Eur Radiol 16:2386–2400

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tawfik AM, Kerl JM, Bauer RW et al (2012) Dual-energy CT of head and neck cancer: average weighting of low- and high-voltage acquisitions to improve lesion delineation and image quality-initial clinical experience. Invest Radiol 47:306–311

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Toepker M, Czerny C, Ringl H et al (2014) Can dual-energy CT improve the assessment of tumor margins in oral cancer? Oral Oncol 50:221–227

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Geets X, Daisne J-F, Arcangeli S et al (2005) Inter-observer variability in the delineation of pharyngo-laryngeal tumor, parotid glands and cervical spinal cord: comparison between CT-scan and MRI. Radiother Oncol 77:25–31

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Vogl TJ, Schulz B, Bauer RW et al (2012) Dual-energy CT applications in head and neck imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:S34–S39

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tawfik AM, Kerl JM, Razek AA et al (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 32:1994–1999

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Paul J, Vogl TJ, Mbalisike EC (2014) Oncological applications of dual-energy computed tomography imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 38:834–842

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Paul J, Mbalisike EC, Nour-Eldin N-EA, Vogl TJ (2013) Dual-source 128-slice MDCT neck: radiation dose and image quality estimation of three different protocols. Eur J Radiol 82:787–796

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. De Cecco CN, Darnell A, Rengo M et al (2012) Dual-energy CT: oncologic applications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:S98–S105

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Simons D, Kachelriess M, Schlemmer H-P (2014) Recent developments of dual-energy CT in oncology. Eur Radiol 24:930–939

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bamberg F, Dierks A, Nikolaou K et al (2011) Metal artifact reduction by dual energy computed tomography using monoenergetic extrapolation. Eur Radiol 21:1424–1429

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Stolzmann P, Winklhofer S, Schwendener N et al (2013) Monoenergetic computed tomography reconstructions reduce beam hardening artifacts from dental restorations. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 9:327–332

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Schneider D, Apfaltrer P, Sudarski S et al (2014) Optimization of kiloelectron volt settings in cerebral and cervical dual-energy CT angiography determined with virtual monoenergetic imaging. Acad Radiol 21:431–436

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Apfaltrer P, Sudarski S, Schneider D et al (2014) Value of monoenergetic low-kV dual energy CT datasets for improved image quality of CT pulmonary angiography. Eur J Radiol 83:322–328

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wichmann JL, Nöske E-M, Kraft J et al (2014) Virtual monoenergetic dual-energy computed tomography: optimization of kiloelectron volt settings in head and neck cancer. Invest Radiol 49:735–741

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Grant KL, Flohr TG, Krauss B et al (2014) Assessment of an advanced image-based technique to calculate virtual monoenergetic computed tomographic images from a dual-energy examination to improve contrast-to-noise ratio in examinations using iodinated contrast media. Invest Radiol 49:586–592

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schabel C, Bongers M, Sedlmair M et al (2014) Assessment of the hepatic veins in poor contrast conditions using dual energy CT: evaluation of a novel monoenergetic extrapolation software algorithm. Röfo 186:591–597

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Szucs-Farkas Z, Kurmann L, Strautz T et al (2008) Patient exposure and image quality of low-dose pulmonary computed tomography angiography: comparison of 100- and 80-kVp protocols. Invest Radiol 43:871–876

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Delesalle M-A, Pontana F, Duhamel A et al (2013) Spectral optimization of chest CT angiography with reduced iodine load: experience in 80 patients evaluated with dual-source, dual-energy CT. Radiology 267:256–266

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Marin D, Nelson RC, Samei E et al (2009) Hypervascular liver tumors: low tube voltage, high tube current multidetector CT during late hepatic arterial phase for detection–initial clinical experience. Radiology 251:771–779

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Cohan RH et al (2013) Contrast material-induced nephrotoxicity and intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast material: risk stratification by using estimated glomerular filtration rate. Radiology 268:719–728

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sudarski S, Apfaltrer P, Nance JW et al (2014) Objective and subjective image quality of liver parenchyma and hepatic metastases with virtual monoenergetic dual-source dual-energy CT reconstructions: an analysis in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Acad Radiol 21:514–522

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Behrendt FF, Schmidt B, Plumhans C et al (2009) Image fusion in dual energy computed tomography: effect on contrast enhancement, signal-to-noise ratio and image quality in computed tomography angiography. Invest Radiol 44:1–6

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wichmann JL, Kraft J, Nöske E-M, et al (2014) Low-tube-voltage 80-kVp neck CT: evaluation of diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement. Am J Neuroradiol

Download references

Acknowledgements

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr Julian L. Wichmann. The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Ralf W. Bauer and J. Matthias Kerl are on the speakers' bureau of Siemens Healthcare, Computed Tomography division. The other authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. Institutional review board approval was obtained.

Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board. No study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported. Methodology: retrospective, case-control study, performed at one institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Moritz H. Albrecht, Jan-Erik Scholtz, Johannes Kraft, Ralf W. Bauer, Moritz Kaup, Patricia Dewes, Andreas M. Bucher, Iris Burck, Thomas Lehnert, J. Matthias Kerl, Thomas J. Vogl & Julian L. Wichmann

  2. Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Jens Wagenblast

  3. Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

    Julian L. Wichmann

Authors
  1. Moritz H. Albrecht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan-Erik Scholtz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Johannes Kraft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ralf W. Bauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Moritz Kaup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Patricia Dewes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Andreas M. Bucher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Iris Burck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jens Wagenblast
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Thomas Lehnert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. J. Matthias Kerl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Thomas J. Vogl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Julian L. Wichmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Moritz H. Albrecht.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Albrecht, M.H., Scholtz, JE., Kraft, J. et al. Assessment of an Advanced Monoenergetic Reconstruction Technique in Dual-Energy Computed Tomography of Head and Neck Cancer. Eur Radiol 25, 2493–2501 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3627-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3627-1

Keywords

  • Monoenergetic Plus
  • Dual-Energy CT
  • Monochromatic imaging
  • Computed Tomography
  • Head and Neck Cancer