Background Patients with acute non-traumatic abdominal pain often undergo abdominal computed tomography (CT). However, abdominal CT is associated with high radiation exposure. Purpose To evaluate diagnostic performance of a reduced-dose 100 kVp CT protocol with advanced modeled iterative reconstruction as compared to a linearly blended 120 kVp protocol for assessment of acute, non-traumatic abdominal pain. Material and Methods Two radiologists assessed 100 kVp and linearly blended 120 kVp series of 112 consecutive patients with acute non-traumatic pain (onset < 48 h) regarding image quality, noise, and artifacts on a five-point Likert scale. Both radiologists assessed both series for abdominal pathologies and for diagnostic confidence. Both 100 kVp and linearly blended 120 kVp series were quantitatively evaluated regarding radiation dose and image noise. Comparative statistics and diagnostic accuracy was calculated using receiver operating curve (ROC) statistics, with final clinical diagnosis/clinical follow-up as reference standard. Results Image quality was high for both series without detectable significant differences ( P = 0.157). Image noise and artifacts were rated low for both series but significantly higher for 100 kVp ( P ≤ 0.021). Diagnostic accuracy was high for both series (120 kVp: area under the curve [AUC] = 0.950, sensitivity = 0.958, specificity = 0.941; 100 kVp: AUC ≥ 0.910, sensitivity ≥ 0.937, specificity = 0.882; P ≥ 0.516) with almost perfect inter-rater agreement (Kappa = 0.939). Diagnostic confidence was high for both dose levels without significant differences (100 kVp 5, range 4-5; 120 kVp 5, range 3-5; P = 0.134). The 100 kVp series yielded 26.1% lower radiation dose compared with the 120 kVp series (5.72 ± 2.23 mSv versus 7.75 ± 3.02 mSv, P < 0.001). Image noise was significantly higher in reduced-dose CT (13.3 ± 2.4 HU versus 10.6 ± 2.1 HU; P < 0.001). Conclusion Reduced-dose abdominal CT using 100 kVp yields excellent image quality and high diagnostic accuracy for the assessment of acute non-traumatic abdominal pain.
· Zinsser D, Marcus R, Othman AE et al. Dose reduction and dose management in computed tomography - State of the art. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2018; 190: 531 - 541.
Background/ObjectivesTo evaluate the predictive value of CT-derived measurements of the aortic annulus for prosthesis sizing in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and to calculate optimal cutoff values for the selection of various prosthesis sizes.MethodsThe local IRB waived approval for this single-center retrospective analysis. Of 441 consecutive TAVI-patients, 90 were excluded (death within 30 days: 13; more than mild aortic regurgitation: 10; other reasons: 67). In the remaining 351 patients, the CoreValve (Medtronic) and the Edwards Sapien XT valve (Edwards Lifesciences) were implanted in 235 and 116 patients. Optimal prosthesis size was determined during TAVI by inflation of a balloon catheter at the aortic annulus. All patients had undergone CT-angiography of the heart or body trunk prior to TAVI. Using these datasets, the diameter of the long and short axis as well as the circumference and the area of the aortic annulus were measured. Multi-Class Receiver-Operator-Curve analyses were used to determine the predictive value of all variables and to define optimal cutoff-values.ResultsDifferences between patients who underwent implantation of the small, medium or large prosthesis were significant for all except the large vs. medium CoreValve (all p’s<0.05). Furthermore, mean diameter, annulus area and circumference had equally high predictive value for prosthesis size for both manufacturers (multi-class AUC’s: 0.80, 0.88, 0.91, 0.88, 0.88, 0.89). Using the calculated optimal cutoff-values, prosthesis size is predicted correctly in 85% of cases.ConclusionCT-based aortic root measurements permit excellent prediction of the prosthesis size considered optimal during TAVI.
State-of-the-art CT-equipment substantially reduce radiation dose without affecting image quality.
Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of an automated workflow for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate compared with a manual mpMRI workflow. Materials and Methods This retrospective study was approved by the local ethics committee. Two MR technicians scanned 2 healthy volunteers with a prototypical highly automated workflow (Siemens Healthineers GmbH, Erlangen, Germany) and with a manually adjusted scan protocol each. Thirty patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 68 ± 11 years; range, 41–93 years) with suspected prostate cancer underwent mpMRI on a 3 T MRI scanner. Fifteen patients were examined with the automated workflow and 15 patients with a conventional manual workflow. Two readers assessed image quality (contrast, zone distinction, organ margins, seminal vesicles, lymph nodes), organ coverage, orientation (T2w sequences), and artifacts (motion, susceptibility, noise) on a 5-point scale (1, poor; 5, excellent). Examination time and MR technicians' acceptance were compared between both groups. Interreader agreement was evaluated with Cohen's kappa (κ). Results The automated workflow proved consistent for sequence orientation and image quality in the intraindividual comparisons. There were no significant differences in examination time (automated vs manual; median 26 vs 28 minutes; interquartile range [IQR], 25–28 minutes each; P = 0.57), study volume coverage, artifacts, or scores for T2w sequence orientation (5 vs 4 each; P > 0.3). Overall image quality was superior for automated MRI (4.6 vs 3.8; IQR, 3.9–4.8 vs 3.2–4.3; P = 0.002), especially concerning organ delineation and seminal vesicles (P = 0.045 and P = 0.013). The acceptance score was higher for the manual workflow (median, 10 vs 8; IQR, 10 vs 7–10; P = 0.002). General interreader agreement was excellent (κ = 0.832; P < 0.001). Conclusions The automated workflow for prostate MRI ensures accurate sequence orientation and maintains high image quality, whereas examination time remained unaffected compared with the manual procedure in our institution.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.