Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 11/2022

Open Access 20-04-2022 | Computed Tomography | Head and Neck

Image quality comparison of single-energy and dual-energy computed tomography for head and neck patients: a prospective randomized study

Authors: Andreas Bedernik, Wolfgang Wuest, Matthias Stefan May, Rafael Heiss, Michael Uder, Marco Wiesmueller

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 11/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the quality of images obtained using single-energy computed tomography (SECT) performed with automated tube voltage adaptation (TVA) with dual-energy CT (DECT) weighted average images.

Methods

Eighty patients were prospectively randomized to undergo either SECT with TVA (n = 40, ref. mAs 200) or radiation dose–matched DECT (n = 40, 80/Sn150 kV, ref. mAs tube A 91/tube B 61) on a dual-source CT scanner. Objective image quality was evaluated as dose-normalized contrast-to-noise ratio (CNRD) for the jugular veins relative to fatty tissue and muscle tissue and for muscle tissue relative to fatty issue. For subjective image quality, reproduction of anatomical structures, image artifacts, image noise, spatial resolution, and overall diagnostic acceptability were evaluated at sixteen anatomical substructures using Likert-type scales.

Results

Effective radiation dose (ED) was comparable between SECT and DECT study groups (2.9 ± 0.6 mSv/3.1 ± 0.7 mSv, p = 0.5). All examinations were rated as excellent or good for clinical diagnosis. Compared to the CNRD in the SECT group, the CNRD in the DECT group was significantly higher for the jugular veins relative to fatty tissue (7.51/6.08, p < 0.001) and for muscle tissue relative to fatty tissue (4.18/2.90, p < 0.001). The CNRD for the jugular veins relative to muscle tissue (3.33/3.18, p = 0.51) was comparable between groups. Image artifacts were less pronounced and overall diagnostic acceptability was higher in the DECT group (all p = 0.01).

Conclusions

DECT weighted average images deliver higher objective and subjective image quality than SECT performed with TVA in head and neck imaging.

Key Points

• Weighted average images derived from dual-energy CT deliver higher objective and subjective image quality than single-energy CT using automated tube voltage adaptation in head and neck imaging.
• If available, dual-energy CT acquisition may be preferred over automated low tube voltage adopted single-energy CT for both malignant and non-malignant conditions.
Literature
1.
Mettler FA Jr (2019) Medical radiation exposure in the United States: 2006-2016 Trends. Health Phys 116:126–128CrossRef
2.
Mettler FA Jr, Bhargavan M, Faulkner K et al (2009) Radiologic and nuclear medicine studies in the United States and worldwide: frequency, radiation dose, and comparison with other radiation sources--1950-2007. Radiology 253:520–531CrossRef
3.
Berrington de González A, Mahesh M, Kim KP et al (2009) Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 169:2071–2077CrossRef
4.
Kalender WA, Buchenau S, Deak P et al (2008) Technical approaches to the optimisation of CT. Phys Med 24:71–79CrossRef
5.
May MS, Kramer MR, Eller A et al (2014) Automated tube voltage adaptation in head and neck computed tomography between 120 and 100 kV: effects on image quality and radiation dose. Neuroradiology 56:797–803CrossRef
6.
Tawfik AM, Kerl JM, Razek AA et al (2011) Image quality and radiation dose of dual-energy CT of the head and neck compared with a standard 120-kVp acquisition. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 32:1994–1999CrossRef
7.
May MS, Wiesmueller M, Heiss R et al (2019) Comparison of dual- and single-source dual-energy CT in head and neck imaging. Eur Radiol 29:4207–4214CrossRef
8.
Petersilka M, Bruder H, Krauss B, Stierstorfer K, Flohr TG (2008) Technical principles of dual source CT. Eur J Radiol 68:362–368CrossRef
9.
Forghani R, Mukherji SK (2018) Advanced dual-energy CT applications for the evaluation of the soft tissues of the neck. Clin Radiol 73:70–80CrossRef
10.
Panzer W, Shrimpton P, Jessen K (2000) European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. In: Commission E (ed) Publications Office of the EU, pp 114
11.
Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA (2010) Multisection CT protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology 257:158–166CrossRef
12.
Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRef
13.
Wichmann JL, Nöske EM, Kraft J et al (2014) Virtual monoenergetic dual-energy computed tomography: optimization of kiloelectron volt settings in head and neck cancer. Invest Radiol 49:735–741CrossRef
14.
Albrecht MH, Vogl TJ, Martin SS et al (2019) Review of clinical applications for virtual monoenergetic dual-energy CT. Radiology 293:260–271CrossRef
15.
May MS, Bruegel J, Brand M et al (2017) Computed tomography of the head and neck region for tumor staging-comparison of dual-source, dual-energy and low-kilovolt, single-energy acquisitions. Invest Radiol 52:522–528CrossRef
16.
Gnannt R, Winklehner A, Goetti R, Schmidt B, Kollias S, Alkadhi H (2012) Low kilovoltage CT of the neck with 70 kVp: comparison with a standard protocol. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33:1014–1019CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Image quality comparison of single-energy and dual-energy computed tomography for head and neck patients: a prospective randomized study
Authors
Andreas Bedernik
Wolfgang Wuest
Matthias Stefan May
Rafael Heiss
Michael Uder
Marco Wiesmueller
Publication date
20-04-2022
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 11/2022
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08689-4

Other articles of this Issue 11/2022

European Radiology 11/2022 Go to the issue

Head and Neck

Value of skull base invasion subclassification in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: implication for prognostic stratification and use of induction chemotherapy

Imaging Informatics and Artificial Intelligence

Use of deep learning-based radiomics to differentiate Parkinson’s disease patients from normal controls: a study based on [18F]FDG PET imaging

Imaging Informatics and Artificial Intelligence

Deep learning–based algorithm improved radiologists’ performance in bone metastases detection on CT

Computed Tomography

Comparison of the performance of conventional and spectral-based tagged stool cleansing algorithms at CT colonography

Contrast Media

Anterior chamber enhancement predicts optic nerve infiltration in retinoblastoma

Head and Neck

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and utility of artificial intelligence–optimized ACR TI-RADS and original ACR TI-RADS: a multi-center validation study based on 2061 thyroid nodules