The Tokai journal of experimental and clinical medicine · 2024
Evaluation of Incidental Findings on Abdominopelvic CT: Potential Benefit of Photon-counting Detector CT Over Conventional Single-energy CT.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ichikawa Tamaki, Yamamuro Hiroshi, Kobayashi Makiko, Yoshida Ryoichi, Katayama Takuto, Nishizawa Kengo, Watanabe Shingo, Furuya Hiroyuki, Hashimoto Jun
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assese of potential benefint of photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT) over conventional single-energy CT (CSE-CT) on accurate diagnosis of incidental findings with high clinical significance (IFHCS).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 365 patients who initially underwent abdominopelvic contrast-enhanced CT (AP-CECT) without non-enhancement (PCD-CT: 187 and CSE-CT: 178). We selected IFHCS and evaluated their diagnosability using CE-CT alone. IFHCSs that could not be diagnosed with only CE-CT were evaluated using additional PCD-CT postprocessing techniques, including virtual non-contrast image, low keV image, and iodine map. A PCD-CT scanner (NAEOTOM Alpha, Siemens Healthineer, Erlangen, Germany) was used.
RESULTS: Thirty-nine IFHCSs (PCD-CT: 22 and CSE-CT: 17) were determined in this study. Seven IFHCSs in each group were able to diagnose with only CE-CT. Fifteen IFHCSs were able to diagnose using the additional PCD-CT postprocessing technique, which was useful for detecting and accurately diagnosing 68.2% (15/22) of lesions and 65% (13/20) of patients. All IFHCSs were accurately diagonosed with PCD-CT.
CONCLUSION: PCD-CT was useful for characterizing IFHCSs that are indeterminate at CSE-CT. PCD-CT offered potential benefit of PCD-CT over conventional single-energy CT on evaluation of IFHCS on only abdominopelvic CT.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 365 patients who initially underwent abdominopelvic contrast-enhanced CT (AP-CECT) without non-enhancement (PCD-CT: 187 and CSE-CT: 178). We selected IFHCS and evaluated their diagnosability using CE-CT alone. IFHCSs that could not be diagnosed with only CE-CT were evaluated using additional PCD-CT postprocessing techniques, including virtual non-contrast image, low keV image, and iodine map. A PCD-CT scanner (NAEOTOM Alpha, Siemens Healthineer, Erlangen, Germany) was used.
RESULTS: Thirty-nine IFHCSs (PCD-CT: 22 and CSE-CT: 17) were determined in this study. Seven IFHCSs in each group were able to diagnose with only CE-CT. Fifteen IFHCSs were able to diagnose using the additional PCD-CT postprocessing technique, which was useful for detecting and accurately diagnosing 68.2% (15/22) of lesions and 65% (13/20) of patients. All IFHCSs were accurately diagonosed with PCD-CT.
CONCLUSION: PCD-CT was useful for characterizing IFHCSs that are indeterminate at CSE-CT. PCD-CT offered potential benefit of PCD-CT over conventional single-energy CT on evaluation of IFHCS on only abdominopelvic CT.