Iodine Maps from Subtraction CT or Dual-Energy CT to Detect Pulmonary Emboli with CT Angiography: A Multiple-Observer Study.

Background Dual-energy CT iodine maps are used to detect pulmonary embolism (PE) with CT angiography but require dedicated hardware. Subtraction CT, a software-only solution, results in iodine maps with high contrast-to-noise ratios. Purpose To compare the use of subtraction CT versus dual-energy CT iodine maps to CT angiography for PE detection. Materials and Methods In this prospective study ( https://clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02890706), 274 participants suspected of having PE underwent precontrast CT followed by contrast material-enhanced dual-energy CT angiography between July 2016 and April 2017. Iodine maps from dual-energy CT were derived. Subtraction maps (contrast-enhanced CT minus precontrast CT) were calculated after motion correction. Truth was established by expert consensus. A total of 75 randomly selected participants with and without PE (1:1 ratio) were evaluated by three radiologists and six radiology residents (blinded to final diagnosis) for the presence of PE using three types of CT: CT angiography alone, dual-energy CT, and subtraction CT. The partial area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the clinically relevant specificity region (maximum partial AUC, 0.11) was compared by using multireader multicase variance. A P value less than or equal to .025 was considered indicative of a significant difference due to multiple comparisons. Results There were 35 men and 40 women in the reader study (mean age, 63 years ± 12 [standard deviation]). The pooled sensitivities were not different (P ≥ .31 among techniques) (95% confidence intervals [CIs]: 67%, 89% for CT angiography; 72%, 91% for dual-energy CT; 70%, 91% for subtraction CT). However, pooled specificity was higher for subtraction CT (95% CI: 100%, 100%) than for CT angiography (95% CI: 89%, 97%) or dual-energy CT (95% CI: 89%, 98%) (P < .001). Partial AUCs for the average observer improved equally when adding iodine maps (subtraction CT [0.093] vs CT angiography [0.088], P = .03; dual-energy CT [0.094] vs CT angiography, P = .01; dual-energy CT vs subtraction CT, P = .68). Average reading times were equivalent (range, 97-101 seconds; P ≥ .41) among techniques. Conclusion Subtraction CT iodine maps had greater specificity than CT angiography alone in pulmonary embolism detection. Subtraction CT had comparable diagnostic performance to that of dual-energy CT, without the need for dedicated hardware. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Malignancy risk estimation of screen-detected nodules at baseline CT: comparison of the PanCan model, Lung-RADS and NCCN guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the PanCan model, Lung-RADS and the 1.2016 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for discriminating malignant from benign pulmonary nodules on baseline screening CT scans and the impact diameter measurement methods have on performances. METHODS: From the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial database, 64 CTs with malignant nodules and 549 baseline CTs with benign nodules were included. Performance of the systems was evaluated applying the system's original diameter definitions: Dlongest-C (PanCan), DmeanAxial (NCCN), both obtained from axial sections, and Dmean3D (Lung-RADS). Subsequently all diameter definitions were applied uniformly to all systems. Areas under the ROC curves (AUC) were used to evaluate risk discrimination. RESULTS: PanCan performed superiorly to Lung-RADS and NCCN (AUC 0.874 vs. 0.813, p = 0.003; 0.874 vs. 0.836, p = 0.010), using the original diameter specifications. When uniformly applying Dlongest-C, Dmean3D and DmeanAxial, PanCan remained superior to Lung-RADS (p < 0.001 - p = 0.001) and NCCN (p < 0.001 - p = 0.016). Diameter definition significantly influenced NCCN's performance with Dlongest-C being the worst (Dlongest-C vs. Dmean3D, p = 0.005; Dlongest-C vs. DmeanAxial, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Without follow-up information, the PanCan model performs significantly superiorly to Lung-RADS and the 1.2016 NCCN guidelines for discriminating benign from malignant nodules. The NCCN guidelines are most sensitive to nodule size definition. KEY POINTS: • PanCan model outperforms Lung-RADS and 1.2016 NCCN guidelines in identifying malignant pulmonary nodules. • Nodule size definition had no significant impact on Lung-RADS and PanCan model. • 1.2016 NCCN guidelines were significantly superior when using mean diameter to longest diameter. • Longest diameter achieved lowest performance for all models. • Mean diameter performed equivalently when derived from axial sections and from volumetry.