Objectives Photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT) promises a leap in spatial resolution due to smaller detector pixel sizes than implemented in energy-integrating detector CTs (EID-CT). Our objective was to compare the visualization of smallest bone details between PCD-CT and EID-CT using a mouse as a specimen. Materials and methods Two euthanized mice were scanned at a 20-slice EID-CT and a dual-source PCD-CT in single-pixel mode at various CTDIVol values. Image noise and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were evaluated using repeated ROI measurements. Edge sharpness of bones was compared by the maximal slope within CT value plots along sampling lines intersecting predefined bones of the spine. Two readers evaluated bone detail visualization at four regions of the spine on a three-point Likert scale at various CTDIVol’s. Two radiologists selected the series with better detail visualization among each of 20 SNR-matched pairs of EID-CT and PCD-CT series. Results In CTDIVol-matched scans, PCD-CT series showed significantly lower image noise (NoiseCTDI=5 mGy: 16.27 ± 1.39 vs. 23.46 ± 0.96 HU, p < 0.01), higher SNR (SNRCTDI=5 mGy: 20.57 ± 1.89 vs. 14.00 ± 0.66, p < 0.01), and higher edge sharpness (Edge Slopelumbar spine: 981 ± 160 vs. 608 ± 146 HU/mm, p < 0.01) than EID-CT series. Two radiologists considered the delineation of bone details as feasible at consistently lower CTDIVol values at PCD-CT than at EID-CT. In comparison of SNR-matched reconstructions, PCD-CT series were still considered superior in almost all cases. Conclusions In this head-to-head comparison, PCD-CT showed superior objective and subjective image quality characteristics over EID-CT for the delineation of tiniest bone details. Even in SNR-matched pairs (acquired at different CTDIVol’s), PCD-CT was strongly preferred by radiologists. Key Points • In dose-matched scans, photon-counting detector CT series showed significantly less image noise, higher signal-to-noise ratio, and higher edge sharpness than energy-integrating detector CT series. • Human observers considered the delineation of tiny bone details as feasible at much lower dose levels in photon-counting detector CT than in energy-integrating detector CT. • In direct comparison of series matched for signal-to-noise ratio, photon-counting detector CT series were considered superior in almost all cases.
This study analyzes nationwide trends in HCC hospitalizations focusing on interventional liver-directed treatments and the influence of age and gender. Using data from the German Federal Statistical Office all hospitalizations for HCC between 2010 and 2020 were included. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify variables independently associated with the use of liver-directed therapies. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, data from 2020 were analyzed separately. A total of 134,713 hospitalizations (2010–2019) were included, increasing by 3.4% annually (12,707 to 13,143). The mean in-hospital stay (−15.0% [7.2 to 6.1 days]) and mortality (−23.2% [6.8 to 5.2%]) decreased while transarterial, surgical, and percutaneous ablative interventions increased by 38.6, 31.5, and 19.3%, respectively. In-hospital mortality was 7.7% in admissions with surgical treatment, while it was 0.6 and 0.5% for transarterial and percutaneous interventions. Mortality was higher in females (6.2 vs. 5.7%). Females (OR 0.89 [0.86,0.91], p < 0.001) and patients ≥80 years (OR 0.81 [0.79,0.84], p < 0.001) were less likely to receive liver-directed treatments. Liver-directed therapies were increasingly performed while in-hospital mortality and in-hospital stay decreased. Minimally invasive approaches showed lower mortality, shorter in-hospital stay, and lower costs compared to surgery. Proportionately, more women and older patients were hospitalized, receiving fewer liver-directed treatments while their mortality was higher.
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.