Japanese Journal of Radiology

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 285–294 | Cite as

Utility of second-generation single-energy metal artifact reduction in helical lung computed tomography for patients with pulmonary arteriovenous malformation after coil embolization

  • Yudai Asano
  • Akihiro Tada
  • Takayoshi Shinya
  • Yoshihisa Masaoka
  • Toshihiro Iguchi
  • Shuhei Sato
  • Susumu Kanazawa
Original Article
  • 89 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The quality of images acquired using single-energy metal artifact reduction (SEMAR) on helical lung computed tomography (CT) in patients with pulmonary arteriovenous malformation (PAVM) after coil embolization was retrospectively evaluated.

Materials and methods

CT images were reconstructed with and without SEMAR. Twenty-seven lesions [20 patients (2 males, 18 females), mean age 61.2 ± 11.0 years; number of embolization coils, 9.8 ± 5.0] on contrast-enhanced CT and 18 lesions of non-enhanced lung CT concurrently performed were evaluated. Regions of interest were positioned around the coils and mean standard deviation value was compared as noise index. Two radiologists visually evaluated metallic coil artifacts using a four-point scale: 4 = minimal; 3 = mild; 2 = strong; 1 = extensive.

Results

Noise index was significantly improved with SEMAR versus without SEMAR (median [interquartile range]; 194.4 [161.6–211.9] Hounsfield units [HU] vs. 243.9 [220.4–286.0] HU; p < 0.001). Visual score was significantly improved with SEMAR versus without SEMAR (Reader 1, 3 [3] vs.1 [1]; Reader 2, 3 [3] vs.1 [1]; p < 0.001). Significant differences were similarly demonstrated on lung CT (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

SEMAR provided clear chest CT images in patients who underwent PAVM coil embolization.

Keywords

Artifact reduction Metal implants CT Pulmonary arteriovenous malformation Single-energy metal artifact reduction algorithm 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest or funding sources to disclose.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the ethics committee of the authors’ institution, and requirements for informed consent were waived. Information from this study was presented on the institutional website, and all patients were informed of their right to opt out.

References

  1. 1.
    Shovlin CL, Letarte M. Hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia and pulmonary arteriovenous malformations: issues in clinical management and review of pathogenic mechanisms. Thorax. 1999;54:714–29.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Trerotola SO, Pyeritz RE. PAVM embolization: an update. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:837–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee YH, Park KK, Song H-T, Kim S, Suh J-S. Metal artefact reduction in gemstone spectral imaging dual-energy CT with and without metal artefact reduction software. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:1331–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yu L, Leng S, McCollough CH. Dual-energy CT-based monochromatic imaging. Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:S9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Subhas N, Polster JM, Obuchowski NA, Primak AN, Dong FF, Herts BR, et al. Imaging of arthroplasties: improved image quality and lesion detection with iterative metal artifact reduction, a new CT metal artifact reduction technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;207:378–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shim E, Kang Y, Ahn JM, Lee E, Lee JW, Oh JH, et al. Metal Artifact reduction for orthopedic implants (O-MAR): usefulness in CT evaluation of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209:860–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Funama Y, Taguchi K, Utsunomiya D, Oda S, Hirata K, Yuki H, et al. A newly-developed metal artifact reduction algorithm improves the visibility of oral cavity lesions on 320-MDCT volume scans. Phys Med. 2015;31:66–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hirata K, Utsunomiya D, Oda S, Kidoh M, Funama Y, Yuki H, et al. Added value of a single-energy projection-based metal artifact reduction algorithm for the computed tomography evaluation of oral cavity cancers. Jpn J Radiol. 2015;33:650–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yasaka K, Kamiya K, Irie R, Maeda E, Sato J, Ohtomo K. Metal artefact reduction for patients with metallic dental fillings in helical neck computed tomography: comparison of adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D (AIDR 3D), forward-projected model-based iterative reconstruction solution (FIRST) and AIDR 3D with single-energy metal artefact reduction (SEMAR). Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160114.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sonoda A, Nitta N, Ushio N, Nagatani Y, Okumura N, Otani H, et al. Evaluation of the quality of CT images acquired with the single energy metal artifact reduction (SEMAR) algorithm in patients with hip and dental prostheses and aneurysm embolization coils. Jpn J Radiol. 2015;33:710–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gondim Teixeira PA, Meyer JB, Baumann C, Raymond A, Sirveaux F, Coudane H, et al. Total hip prosthesis CT with single energy projection-based metallic artifact reduction: impact on the visualization of specific periprosthetic soft tissue structures. Skelet Radiol. 2014;43:1237–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yasaka K, Maeda E, Hanaoka S, Katsura M, Sato J, Ohtomo K. Single-energy metal artifact reduction for helical computed tomography of the pelvis in patients with metal hip prostheses. Jpn J Radiol. 2016;34:625–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kidoh M, Utsunomiya D, Oda S, Nakaura T, Funama Y, Yuki H, et al. CT venography after knee replacement surgery: comparison of dual-energy CT-based monochromatic imaging and single-energy metal artifact reduction techniques on a 320-row CT scanner. Acta Radiol Open. 2017;6:1–8.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sofue K, Yoshikawa T, Ohno Y, Negi N, Inokawa H, Sugihara N, et al. Improved image quality in abdominal CT in patients who underwent treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma with small metal implants using a raw data-based metal artifact reduction algorithm. Eur Radiol. 2017;27:2978–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tatsugami F, Higaki T, Sakane H, Fukumoto W, Iida M, Baba Y, et al. Coronary CT angiography in patients with implanted cardiac devices: initial experience with the metal artefact reduction technique. Br J Radiol. 2016;89:1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kidoh M, Utsunomiya D, Ikeda O, Tamura Y, Oda S, Funama Y, et al. Reduction of metallic coil artefacts in computed tomography body imaging: effects of a new single-energy metal artefact reduction algorithm. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:1378–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fang J, Zhang D, Wilcox C, Heidinger B, Raptopoulos V, Brook A, et al. Metal implants on CT: comparison of iterative reconstruction algorithms for reduction of metal artifacts with single energy and spectral CT scanning in a phantom model. Abdom Radiol. 2017;42:742–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bal M, Spies L. Metal artifact reduction in CT using tissue-class modeling and adaptive prefiltering. Med Phys. 2006;33:2852–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ohkubo M, Wada S, Kayugawa A, Matsumoto T, Murao K. Image filtering as an alternative to the application of a different reconstruction kernel in CT imaging: feasibility study in lung cancer screening. Med Phys. 2011;38:3915–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Solomon JB, Christianson O, Samei E. Quantitative comparison of noise texture across CT scanners from different manufacturers. Med Phys. 2012;39:6048–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shimohira M, Kawai T, Hashizume T, Ohta K, Nakagawa M, Ozawa Y, et al. Reperfusion rates of pulmonary arteriovenous malformations after coil embolization: evaluation with time-resolved MR angiography or pulmonary angiography. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;26:856–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Remy-Jardin M, Dumont P, Brillet PY, Dupuis P, Duhamel A, Remy J. Pulmonary arteriovenous malformations treated with embolotherapy: helical CT evaluation of long-term effectiveness after 2-21-year follow-up. Radiology. 2006;239:576–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Makimoto S, Hiraki T, Gobara H, Fujiwara H, Iguchi T, Matsui Y, et al. Association between reperfusion and shrinkage percentage of the aneurysmal sac after embolization of pulmonary arteriovenous malformation: evaluation based on contrast-enhanced thin-section CT images. Jpn J Radiol. 2014;32:266–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bélanger C, Chartrand-Lefebvre C, Soulez G, Faughnan ME, Tahir MR, Giroux MF, et al. Pulmonary arteriovenous malformation (PAVM) reperfusion after percutaneous embolization: sensitivity and specificity of non-enhanced CT. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:150–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gamondès D, Si-Mohamed S, Cottin V, Gonidec S, Boussel L, Douek P, et al. Vein diameter on unenhanced multidetector CT predicts reperfusion of pulmonary arteriovenous malformation after embolotherapy. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:2723–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Radiological Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyOkayama University HospitalOkayama-cityJapan
  2. 2.Department of Health InformaticsKawasaki University of Medical WelfareOkayamaJapan

Personalised recommendations