Intra-patient variability of iodine quantification across different dual-energy CT platforms: assessment of normalization techniques.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate intra-patient variability of iodine concentration (IC) between three different dual-energy CT (DECT) platforms and to test different normalization approaches. METHODS: Forty-four patients who underwent portal venous phase abdominal DECT on a dual-source (dsDECT), a rapid kVp switching (rsDECT), and a dual-layer detector platform (dlDECT) during cancer follow-up were retrospectively included. IC in the liver, pancreas, and kidneys and different normalized ICs (NICPV:portal vein; NICAA:abdominal aorta; NICALL:overall iodine load) were compared between the three DECT scanners for each patient. A longitudinal mixed effects analysis was conducted to elucidate the effect of the scanner type, scan order, inter-scan time, and contrast media amount on normalized iodine concentration. RESULTS: Variability of IC was highest in the liver (dsDECT vs. dlDECT 28.96 (14.28-46.87) %, dsDECT vs. rsDECT 29.08 (16.59-62.55) %, rsDECT vs. dlDECT 22.85 (7.52-33.49) %), and lowest in the kidneys (dsDECT vs. dlDECT 15.76 (7.03-26.1) %, dsDECT vs. rsDECT 15.67 (8.86-25.56) %, rsDECT vs. dlDECT 10.92 (4.92-22.79) %). NICALL yielded the best reduction of IC variability throughout all tissues and inter-scanner comparisons, yet did not reduce the variability between dsDECT vs. dlDECT and rsDECT, respectively, in the liver. The scanner type remained a significant determinant for NICALL in the pancreas and the liver (F-values, 12.26 and 23.78; both, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We found tissue-specific intra-patient variability of IC across different DECT scanner types. Normalization mitigated variability by reducing physiological fluctuations in iodine distribution. After normalization, the scanner type still had a significant effect on iodine variability in the pancreas and liver. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Differences in iodine quantification between dual-energy CT scanners can partly be mitigated by normalization, yet remain relevant for specific tissues and inter-scanner comparisons, which should be taken into account at clinical routine imaging. KEY POINTS: • Iodine concentration showed the least variability between scanner types in the kidneys (range 10.92-15.76%) and highest variability in the liver (range 22.85-29.08%). • Normalizing tissue-specific iodine concentrations against the overall iodine load yielded the greatest reduction of variability between scanner types for 2/3 inter-scanner comparisons in the liver and for all (3/3) inter-scanner comparisons in the kidneys and pancreas, respectively. • However, even after normalization, the dual-energy CT scanner type was found to be the factor significantly influencing variability of iodine concentration in the liver and pancreas.

Is There a Difference Between LI-RADS 3 to LI-RADS 5 Progression Assessment Using CT Versus MR? A Retrospective, Single-Center, Longitudinal Study of Patients Who Underwent 5082 Radiologic Examinations for Surveillance of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Over a 43-Month Period.

OBJECTIVE: The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) has been widely applied to CT and MR liver observations in patients at high-risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We investigated the impact of CT vs MR in upgrading LI-RADS 3 to LI-RADS 5 observations using a large cohort of high-risk patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, longitudinal study of CT and MR radiographic reports (June 2013 - February 2017) with an assigned LI-RADS category. A final population of 757 individual scans and 212 high-risk patients had at least one LI-RADS 3 observation. Differences in observation time to progression between modalities were determined using uni- and multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Of the 212 patients with a LI-RADS 3 observation, 52 (25%) had progression to LI-RADS 5. Tp ranged from 64 - 818 days (median: 196 days). One hundred and three patients (49%) had MR and 109 patients (51%) had CT as their index study. Twenty-four patients with an MR index exam progressed to LI-RADS 5 during the follow-up interval, with progression rates of 22% (CI:13%-30%) at 1 year and 29% (CI:17%-40%) at 2 years. Twenty-eight patients with a CT index exam progressed to LI-RADS 5 during follow-up, with progression rates of 26% (CI:16%-35%) at 1 year and 31% (CI:19%-41%) at 2 years. Progression rates were not significantly different between patients whose LI-RADS 3 observation was initially diagnosed on MR vs CT (HR: 0.81, P = 0.44). DISCUSSION: MR and CT modalities are comparable for demonstrating progression from LI-RADS 3 to 5 for high risk patients.

Use of dual-energy CT for renal mass assessment.

Although dual-energy CT (DECT) may prove useful in a variety of abdominal imaging tasks, renal mass evaluation represents the area where this technology can be most impactful in abdominal imaging compared to routinely performed contrast-enhanced-only single-energy CT exams. DECT post-processing techniques, such as creation of virtual unenhanced and iodine density images, can help in the characterization of incidentally discovered renal masses that would otherwise remain indeterminate based on post-contrast imaging only. The purpose of this article is to review the use of DECT for renal mass assessment, including its benefits and existing limitations. KEY POINTS: • If DECT is selected as the scanning mode for most common abdominal protocols, many incidentally found renal masses can be fully triaged within the same exam. • Virtual unenhanced and iodine density DECT images can provide additional information when renal masses are discovered in the post-contrast-only setting. • For renal mass evaluation, virtual unenhanced and iodine density DECT images should be interpreted side-by-side to troubleshoot pitfalls that can potentially lead to erroneous interpretation.

Clinical and Payer-Based Analysis of Value of Dual-Energy Computed Tomography for Workup of Incidental Abdominal Findings.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a clinical and payer-based analysis of the value of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) for workup of incidental abdominal findings. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospectively designed, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study approved by our institutional review board. Sixty-nine examinations in 69 patients (45 men, 24 women; mean age, 57.7 years) who underwent single-phase postcontrast abdominal DECT studies between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017, were included. Two radiologists, blinded to study objective and design, reviewed all cases and identified incidental abdominal findings needing further imaging. All incidental findings were reviewed by 2 other investigators, who determined whether an imaging-based diagnosis could be made using DECT virtual noncontrast images and iodine maps. Additional studies and associated payer-reimbursement amounts avoided by use of DECT were estimated. All imaging costs were estimated based on the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement amounts. RESULTS: Thirty-four incidental findings (renal mass, n = 20; adrenal nodule, n = 8; pancreatic cystic lesions, n = 3; others, n = 3) were identified in 19 (27.5%) of 69 patients. Dual-energy computed tomography characterized 27 incidental findings in 15 patients and accounted for cost savings of 15 additional imaging examinations (abdominal magnetic resonance imaging, n = 11; abdominal computed tomography, n = 4). Based on Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement amounts, we estimated that, by abolishing the need for additional imaging use, DECT saved US $84.95 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Dual-energy computed tomography can provide an imaging-based diagnosis of incidental abdominal findings, otherwise incompletely characterized on routine abdominal computed tomography, in approximately 21% of patients. In select patients, the monetary savings from abolishing additional imaging may reduce payer costs associated with use of DECT.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Investigating the Diagnostic Yield of Dual-Energy CT for Renal Mass Assessment.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy CT (DECT) for renal mass evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In March 2018, we searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Analytic methods were based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Pooled estimates for sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios were calculated for DECT-based virtual monochromatic imaging (VMI) and iodine quantification techniques as well as for conventional attenuation measurements from renal mass CT protocols. I2 was used to evaluate heterogeneity. The methodologic quality of the included studies and potential bias were assessed using items from the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). RESULTS. Of the 1043 articles initially identified, 13 were selected for inclusion (969 patients, 1193 renal masses). Cumulative data of sensitivity, specificity, and summary diagnostic odds ratio for VMI were 87% (95% CI, 80-92%; I2, 92.0%), 93% (95% CI, 90-96%; I2, 18.0%), and 183.4 (95% CI, 30.7-1093.4; I2, 61.6%), respectively. Cumulative data of sensitivity, specificity, and summary diagnostic odds ratio for iodine quantification were 99% (95% CI, 97-100%; I2, 17.6%), 91% (95% CI, 89-94%; I2, 84.2%), and 511.5 (95% CI, 217-1201; I2, 0%). No significant differences in AUCs were found when comparing iodine quantification to conventional attenuation measurements (p = 0.79). CONCLUSION. DECT yields high accuracy for renal mass evaluation. Determination of iodine content with the iodine quantification technique shows diagnostic accuracy similar to conventional attenuation measurements from renal mass CT protocols. The iodine quantification technique may be used to characterize incidental renal masses when a dedicated renal mass protocol is not available.

Accuracy of contrast-enhanced dual-energy MDCT for the assessment of iodine uptake in renal lesions.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess the accuracy of iodine-related attenuation and iodine quantification as imaging biomarkers of iodine uptake in renal lesions on a single-phase nephrographic image with dual-energy MDCT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-nine patients (41 men, 18 women; age range, 28-84 years) with 80 renal lesions underwent contrast-enhanced dual-energy CT during the nephrographic phase of enhancement. Renal lesions were characterized as enhancing or nonenhancing on color-coded iodine overlay maps using iodine-related attenuation (in Hounsfield units) and iodine quantification (in milligrams per milliliter). For iodine-related attenuation the iodine uptake thresholds of 15 and 20 HU were tested; a threshold of 0.5 mg/mL was used for iodine quantification. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of iodine-related attenuation and iodine quantification were calculated from chi-square tests of contingency with histopathology or imaging follow-up as the reference standard. The 95% CIs were calculated from binomial expression. Differences in sensitivity and specificity were assessed by means of McNemar analysis. RESULTS: A significant difference in sensitivity and specificity was found between iodine-related attenuation with the thresholds of 15 HU (sensitivity, 91.4%; specificity, 93.3%; PPV, 91.4%; NPV, 93.3%) and 20 HU (sensitivity, 77.1%; specificity, 100%; PPV, 100%; NPV, 84.9%) (p = 0.008) and between iodine quantification (sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 97.7%; PPV, 97.2%; NPV, 100%) and iodine-related attenuation with a threshold of 20 HU (p = 0.004). No significant difference in sensitivity and specificity was found between iodine quantification and iodine-related attenuation with a threshold of 15 HU. CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced dual-energy MDCT with iodine-related attenuation and iodine quantification allows accurate evaluation of iodine uptake in renal lesions on a single-phase nephrographic image.

Dual energy MDCT assessment of renal lesions: an overview.

With the expansion of cross-sectional imaging, the number of renal lesions that are incidentally discovered has increased. Multidetector CT (MDCT) is the investigation of choice for characterising and staging renal lesions. Although a definitive diagnosis can be confidently posed for most of them, a number of renal lesions remain indeterminate following MDCT. Further imaging tests are therefore needed, with subsequent increase of healthcare costs, radiation exposure, and patient anxiety. By addressing most of the issues with conventional MDCT imaging, dual-energy MDCT can improve the diagnosis of renal lesions and, potentially, may represent a paradigm shift from a merely attenuation-based to a material-specific spectral imaging investigation. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of current clinical applications of dual-energy CT in the evaluation of renal lesions. Key Points • As MDCT expands, an increasing number of renal lesions are serendipitously discovered. • With conventional MDCT, technical issues affect the diagnosis of renal lesions. • Dual-energy CT addresses some of the drawbacks of conventional MDCT. • Dual-energy CT may represent a paradigm shift for renal lesions imaging.