Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 2069–2078 | Cite as

How accurate and precise are CT based measurements of iodine concentration? A comparison of the minimum detectable concentration difference among single source and dual source dual energy CT in a phantom study

  • André EulerEmail author
  • Justin Solomon
  • Maciej A. Mazurowski
  • Ehsan Samei
  • Rendon C. Nelson
Computed Tomography
  • 157 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the impact of scan- and patient-related factors on the error and the minimum detectable difference in iodine concentration among different generations of single-source (SS) fast kV-switching and dual-source (DS) dual-energy CT (DECT).

Methods

Lesions having eight different iodine concentrations (0.2–4 mgI/mL) were emulated in a 3D-printed phantom of medium and large size. Each combination of concentration and size was scanned in dual-energy mode on four different SS and DS DECTs. Radiation doses were 7 and 10 mGy (medium size) and 10, 13, and 16 mGy (large size). Iodine maps were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and vendor-specific iterative reconstruction algorithms (IRs). Absolute error of iodine quantification (E) was measured. Multivariate regression models determined the influence of CT scanner, iodine concentration, phantom size, radiation dose, and reconstruction algorithm on E. The minimum detectable difference in iodine concentration (ICmin) under the same imaging conditions (intra-conditional) and among different imaging conditions (inter-conditional) was calculated.

Results

The error was significantly lower in current than in previous DECT generations (p < 0.001). For all CT scanner conditions, the error was significantly higher with increasing phantom size and decreasing radiation dose (p < 0.001). Iodine concentration only significantly affected the error for SS DECT (p < 0.001). ICmin depended on patient- and scan-related factors and ranged from 0.4 to 1.5 mgI/mL.

Conclusions

Patient- and scan-related factors have a significant impact on the error and minimum detectable difference in iodine concentration within and among SS fast kV-switching and DS DECT.

Key Points

• Patient- and scan-related factors have a significant impact on the error and minimum detectable difference in dual-energy CT-based iodine quantification.

• Third-generation DECTs outperformed second-generation scanners for both single-source and dual-source dual-energy CT.

• The minimum intra- and inter-conditional detectable difference in iodine concentration ranged from 0.4 to 1.5 mg iodine/mL.

Keywords

Multidetector computed tomography Iodine Phantom imaging 

Abbreviations

DECT

Dual-energy computed tomography

DECT-IQ

Dual-energy CT-based iodine quantification

DS

Dual-source

FBP

Filtered back projection

ICmin

Minimum detectable difference in iodine concentration

IR

Iterative reconstruction algorithm

IRB

Institutional review board

RCC

Renal cell carcinoma

SS

Single-source

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Cristian T. Badea and Yi Qi from the Center of In-Vivo Microscopy of Duke University Medical Center for assistance to create iodinated solutions.

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Andre Euler.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies:

Rendon C. Nelson is a medical consultant to GE Healthcare.

Andre Euler is a research fellow supported by GE Healthcare and the Swiss Society of Radiology

Ehsan Samei is the recipient of research funding from Siemens Healthineers and GE Healthcare for projects unrelated to this study.

Statistics and biometry

Maciej A. Mazurowski kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.

Informed consent

Approval from the institutional animal care committee was not required because of the design as a phantom study.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was not required because of the design as a phantom study.

Methodology

• prospective

• experimental

• performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2018_5736_MOESM1_ESM.docx (108 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 108 kb)
330_2018_5736_MOESM2_ESM.docx (905 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 904 kb)
330_2018_5736_MOESM3_ESM.docx (123 kb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 123 kb)
330_2018_5736_MOESM4_ESM.docx (16.2 mb)
ESM 4 (DOCX 16628 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Graser A, Becker CR, Staehler M et al (2010) Single-phase dual-energy CT allows for characterization of renal masses as benign or malignant. Invest Radiol 45:399–405PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chandarana H, Megibow AJ, Cohen BA et al (2011) Iodine quantification with dual-energy CT: phantom study and preliminary experience with renal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:W693–W700CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Song KD, Kim CK, Park BK, Kim B (2011) Utility of iodine overlay technique and virtual unenhanced images for the characterization of renal masses by dual-energy CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:W1076–W1082CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ascenti G, Mileto A, Krauss B et al (2013) Distinguishing enhancing from nonenhancing renal masses with dual-source dual-energy CT: iodine quantification versus standard enhancement measurements. Eur Radiol 23:2288–2295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dai X, Schlemmer HP, Schmidt B et al (2013) Quantitative therapy response assessment by volumetric iodine-uptake measurement: initial experience in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib. Eur J Radiol 82:327–334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mileto A, Marin D, Ramirez-Giraldo JC et al (2014) Accuracy of contrast-enhanced dual-energy MDCT for the assessment of iodine uptake in renal lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:W466–W474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang S, Hur J, Im DJ et al (2016) Dual-energy CT-based iodine quantification for differentiating pulmonary artery sarcoma from pulmonary thromboembolism: a pilot study. Eur Radiol 26:3162–3170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Martin SS, Weidinger S, Czwikla R et al (2018) Iodine and fat quantification for differentiation of adrenal gland adenomas from metastases using third-generation dual-source dual-energy computed tomography. Invest Radiol 53:173–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rizzo S, Radice D, Femia M et al (2018) Metastatic and non-metastatic lymph nodes: quantification and different distribution of iodine uptake assessed by dual-energy CT. Eur Radiol 28:760–769CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fan S, Li X, Zheng L, Hu D, Ren X, Ye Z (2017) Correlations between the iodine concentrations from dual energy computed tomography and molecular markers Ki-67 and HIF-1alpha in rectal cancer: a preliminary study. Eur J Radiol 96:109–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li J, Fang M, Wang R et al (2018) Diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy CT-based nomograms to predict lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer. Eur Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5483-2
  12. 12.
    Baxa J, Matouskova T, Krakorova G et al (2016) Dual-phase dual-energy CT in patients treated with Erlotinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: possible benefits of iodine quantification in response assessment. Eur Radiol 26:2828–2836CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hellbach K, Sterzik A, Sommer W et al (2017) Dual energy CT allows for improved characterization of response to antiangiogenic treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. Eur Radiol 27:2532–2537CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marin D, Davis D, Roy Choudhury K et al (2017) Characterization of small focal renal lesions: diagnostic accuracy with single-phase contrast-enhanced dual-energy ct with material attenuation analysis compared with conventional attenuation measurements. Radiology 284:737–747CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mileto A, Marin D, Alfaro-Cordoba M et al (2014) Iodine quantification to distinguish clear cell from papillary renal cell carcinoma at dual-energy multidetector CT: a multireader diagnostic performance study. Radiology 273:813–820CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Feuerlein S, Heye TJ, Bashir MR, Boll DT (2012) Iodine quantification using dual-energy multidetector computed tomography imaging: phantom study assessing the impact of iterative reconstruction schemes and patient habitus on accuracy. Invest Radiol 47:656–661CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koonce JD, Vliegenthart R, Schoepf UJ et al (2014) Accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography for the measurement of iodine concentration using cardiac CT protocols: validation in a phantom model. Eur Radiol 24:512–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Faby S, Kuchenbecker S, Sawall S et al (2015) Performance of today's dual energy CT and future multi energy CT in virtual non-contrast imaging and in iodine quantification: a simulation study. Med Phys 42:4349–4366CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Euler A, Parakh A, Falkowski AL et al (2016) Initial results of a single-source dual-energy computed tomography technique using a split-filter: assessment of image quality, radiation dose, and accuracy of dual-energy applications in an in vitro and in vivo study. Invest Radiol 51:491–498CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jacobsen MC, Schellingerhout D, Wood CA et al (2017) Intermanufacturer comparison of dual-energy CT iodine quantification and monochromatic attenuation: a phantom study. Radiology.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170896:170896
  21. 21.
    Pelgrim GJ, van Hamersvelt RW, Willemink MJ et al (2017) Accuracy of iodine quantification using dual energy CT in latest generation dual source and dual layer CT. Eur Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4752-9
  22. 22.
    Kim H, Goo JM, Kang CK, Chae KJ, Park CM (2018) Comparison of iodine density measurement among dual-energy computed tomography scanners from 3 vendors. Invest Radiol 53:321–327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sauter AP, Kopp FK, Münzel D et al (2018) Accuracy of iodine quantification in dual-layer spectral CT: influence of iterative reconstruction, patient habitus and tube parameters. Eur J Radiol 102:83–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Delgado Sánchez-Gracián C, Oca Pernas R, Trinidad López C et al (2016) Quantitative myocardial perfusion with stress dual-energy CT: iodine concentration differences between normal and ischemic or necrotic myocardium. Initial experience. Eur Radiol 26:3199–3207Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martin SS, Czwikla R, Wichmann JL et al (2018) Dual-energy CT-based iodine quantification to differentiate abdominal malignant lymphoma from lymph node metastasis. Eur J Radiol 105:255–260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kaltenbach B, Wichmann JL, Pfeifer S et al (2018) Iodine quantification to distinguish hepatic neuroendocrine tumour metastasis from hepatocellular carcinoma at dual-source dual-energy liver CT. Eur J Radiol 105:20–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li Y, Shi G, Wang S, Wang S, Wu R (2013) Iodine quantification with dual-energy CT: phantom study and preliminary experience with VX2 residual tumour in rabbits after radiofrequency ablation. Br J Radiol 86:20130143CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang D, Li X, Liu B (2011) Objective characterization of GE discovery CT750 HD scanner: gemstone spectral imaging mode. Med Phys 38:1178–1188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gao SY, Zhang XY, Wei W et al (2016) Identification of benign and malignant thyroid nodules by in vivo iodine concentration measurement using single-source dual energy CT: a retrospective diagnostic accuracy study. Medicine (Baltimore) 95:e4816CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Carl E. Ravin Advanced Imaging LaboratoriesDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations