Assessment of arterially hyper-enhancing liver lesions using virtual monoenergetic images from spectral detector CT: phantom and patient experience.

PURPOSE: To investigate a benefit from virtual monoenergetic reconstructions (VMIs) for assessment of arterially hyper-enhancing liver lesions in phantom and patients and to compare hybrid-iterative and spectral image reconstructions of conventional images (CI-IR and CI-SR). METHODS: All imaging was performed on a SDCT (Philips Healthcare, Best, The Netherlands). Images of a non-anthropomorphic phantom with a lesion-mimicking insert (containing iodine in water solution) and arterial-phase images from contrast-enhanced patient examinations were evaluated. VMIs (40-200 keV, 10 keV increment), CI-IR, and CI-SR were reconstructed using different strengths of image denoising. ROIs were placed in lesions, liver/matrix, muscle; signal-to-noise, contrast-to-noise, and lesion-to-liver ratios (SNR, CNR, and LLR) were calculated. Qualitatively, 40, 70, and 110 keV and CI images were assessed by two radiologists on five-point Likert scales regarding overall image quality, lesion assessment, and noise. RESULTS: In phantoms, SNR was increased threefold by VMI40keV compared with CI-IR/SR (5.8 ± 1.1 vs. 18.8 ± 2.2, p ≤ 0.001), while no difference was found between CI-IR and CI-SR (p = 1). Denoising was capable of noise reduction by 40%. In total, 20 patients exhibiting 51 liver lesions were assessed. Attenuation was the highest in VMI40keV, while image noise was comparable to CI-IR resulting in a threefold increase of CNR/LLR (CI-IR 1.3 ± 0.8/4.4 ± 2.0, VMI40keV: 3.8 ± 2.7/14.2 ± 7.5, p ≤ 0.001). Subjective lesion delineation was the best in VMI40keV image (p ≤ 0.01), which also provided the lowest perceptible noise and the best overall image quality. CONCLUSIONS: VMIs improve assessment of arterially hyper-enhancing liver lesions since they increase lesion contrast while maintaining low image noise throughout the entire keV spectrum. These data suggest that to consider VMI screening after arterially hyper-enhancing liver lesions.

Abdominal and pelvic CT: is positive enteric contrast still necessary? Results of a retrospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of abdominal CT depending on the type of enteric contrast agent. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Multislice CTs of 2,008 patients with different types of oral preparation (positive with barium, n = 576; neutral with water, n = 716; and no enteric contrast, n = 716) were retrospectively evaluated by two radiologists including delineation of intestinal segments and influence on diagnosis and diagnostic reliability exerted by the enteric contrast, using a three-point scale. Furthermore, diagnostic reliability of the delineation of selected enteric pathologies was noted. CT data were assigned into groups: oncology, inflammation, vascular, pathology, trauma and gastrointestinal pathology. RESULTS: Delineation of the bowel was clearly practicable across all segments irrespective of the type of enteric contrast, though a slight impairment was observed without enteric contrast. Although delineation of intestinal pathologies was mostly classified "clearly delimitable" more difficulties occurred without oral contrast (neutral/positive/no contrast, 0.8 %/3.8 %/6.5 %). Compared to examinations without enteric contrast, there was a significant improvement in diagnosis that was even increased regarding the reader's diagnostic reliability. Positive opacification impaired detection of mucosal enhancement or intestinal bleeding. CONCLUSION: Water can replace positive enteric contrast agents in abdominal CTs. However, selected clinical questions require individual enteric contrast preparations. Pathology detection is noticeably impaired without any enteric contrast.

Comparison of manual and semi-automatic measuring techniques in MSCT scans of patients with lymphoma: a multicentre study.

OBJECTIVES: Multicentre evaluation of the precision of semi-automatic 2D/3D measurements in comparison to manual, linear measurements of lymph nodes regarding their inter-observer variability in multi-slice CT (MSCT) of patients with lymphoma. METHODS: MSCT data of 63 patients were interpreted before and after chemotherapy by one/two radiologists in five university hospitals. In 307 lymph nodes, short (SAD)/long (LAD) axis diameter and WHO area were determined manually and semi-automatically. Volume was solely calculated semi-automatically. To determine the precision of the individual parameters, a mean was calculated for every lymph node/parameter. Deviation of the measured parameters from this mean was evaluated separately. Statistical analysis entailed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: Median relative deviations of semi-automatic parameters were smaller than deviations of manually assessed parameters, e.g. semi-automatic SAD 5.3 vs. manual 6.5 %. Median variations among different study sites were smaller if the measurement was conducted semi-automatically, e. g. manual LAD 5.7/4.2 % vs. semi-automatic 3.4/3.4 %. Semi-automatic volumetry was superior to the other parameters (2.8 %). CONCLUSIONS: Semi-automatic determination of different lymph node parameters is (compared to manually assessed parameters) associated with a slightly greater precision and a marginally lower inter-observer variability. These results are with regard to the increasing mobility of patients among different medical centres and in relation to the quality management of multicentre trials of importance. KEY POINTS: • In a multicentre setting, semi-automatic measurements are more accurate than manual assessments. • Lymph node volumetry outperforms all other semi-automatically and manually performed measurements. • Use of semi-automatic lymph node analyses can reduce the inter-observer variability.

Radiological evaluation of the therapeutic response of malignant diseases: status quo, innovative developments and requirements for radiology.

UNLABELLED: In consequence of the rapid development of newer targeted and personalized tumor therapies, radiology as an essential component of the treatment concept of numerous malignant diseases needs to improve in order to adequately capture and evaluate the effects, but also the side effects of these novel therapeutic agents. The early recognition of therapy response or failure is crucial for the optimal planning of the further treatment and can therefore have direct impact on the chances of recovery and the survival time of oncological patients. In previous years, the goal of medical imaging was to just qualitatively assess the increase or reduction in the size of tumors and their metastases, which was often achieved by a simple subjective estimation of the tumor findings by the diagnosing radiologist. Nowadays, radiology is faced with the challenge of evaluating changes during therapy quantitatively and of visualizing therapeutic effects that are more discrete (e. g. necrosis, altered tumor perfusion). The importance of an adequate assessment of therapy response is further underlined by the fact that in these days, a good portion of oncological patients are enrolled in clinical trials, in which the quantitative radiological evaluation of malignant disorders is an important surrogate parameter. On the basis of this development, the demands for radiology to provide more sophisticated assessments of therapy response and documentation of imaging findings have been constantly growing. The following article provides an overview of the established and still widely spread but in particular also the latest imaging modalities and evaluation criteria with regard to oncological diseases as well as of the increasing demands on radiology that result from these developments. Beyond that, future advancements in tumor imaging are taken into account and the new challenges these developments will bring are discussed. KEY POINTS: • In the era of personalized medicine, evaluation criteria that are individually adapted to the respective patient are required.• Radiology needs to substantially contribute to oncological treatment concepts and the evaluation of therapeutic response.

Therapy response evaluation of malignant lymphoma in a multicenter study: comparison of manual and semiautomatic measurements in CT.

PURPOSE: Comparison of manual one-/bi-dimensional measurements versus semi-automatically derived one-/bi-dimensional and volumetric measurements for therapy response evaluation of malignant lymphoma during CT follow-up examinations in a multicenter setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MSCT data sets of patients with malignant lymphoma were evaluated before (baseline) and after two cycles of chemotherapy (follow-up) at radiological centers of five university hospitals. The long axis diameter (LAD), the short axis diameter (SAD) and the bi-dimensional WHO of 307 target lymph nodes were measured manually and semi-automatically using dedicated software. Lymph node volumetry was performed semi-automatically only. The therapeutic response was evaluated according to lymphoma-adapted RECIST. RESULTS: Based on a single lymph node, semi-automatically derived multidimensional parameters allowed for significantly more accurate therapy response classification than the manual or the semi-automatic unidimensional parameters. Incorrect classifications were reduced by up to 9.6%. Compared to the manual approach, the influence of the study center on correct therapy classification is significantly less relevant when using semi-automatic measurements. CONCLUSION: Semi-automatic volumetry and bi-dimensional WHO significantly reduce the number of incorrectly classified lymphoma patients by approximately 9.6% in the multicenter setting in comparison to linear parameters. Semi-automatic quantitative software tools may help to significantly reduce wrong classifications that are associated with the manual assessment approach. KEY POINTS: ► Semi-automatic volumetry and bi-dimensional WHO significantly reduce the number of incorrectly classified lymphoma patients ► Manual lymph node evaluation with uni-dimensional parameters is inferior to semi-automatic analysis in a multicenter setting ► Semi-automatic quantitative software tools should be introduced in clinical study evaluation.