1
|
Toia GV, Garret JW, Rose SD, Szczykutowicz TP, Pickhardt PJ. Comparing fully automated AI body composition biomarkers at differing virtual monoenergetic levels using dual-energy CT. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2025; 50:2758-2769. [PMID: 39643734 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-024-04733-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2024] [Revised: 11/27/2024] [Accepted: 11/29/2024] [Indexed: 12/09/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate the behavior of artificial intelligence (AI) CT-based body composition biomarkers at different virtual monoenergetic imaging (VMI) levels using dual-energy CT (DECT). METHODS This retrospective study included 88 contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CTs acquired with rapid-kVp switching DECT. Images were reconstructed into five VMI levels (40, 55, 70, 85, 100 keV). Fully automated algorithms for quantifying CT number (HU) in abdominal fat (subcutaneous and visceral), skeletal muscle, bone, calcium (abdominal Agatston score), and organ size (area or volume) were applied. Biomarker median difference relative to 70 keV and interquartile range were reported by energy level to characterize variation. Linear regression was performed to calibrate non-70 keV data and to estimate their equivalent 70 keV biomarker attenuation values. RESULTS Relative to 70 keV, absolute median differences in attenuation-based biomarkers (excluding Agatston score) ranged 39-358, 12-102, 5-48, 9-75 HU for 40, 55, 85, 100 keV, respectively. For area-based biomarkers, differences ranged 6-15, 3-4, 2-7, 0-5 cm2 for 40, 55, 85, 100 keV. For volume-based biomarkers, differences ranged 12-34, 8-68, 12-52, 1-57 cm3 for 40, 55, 85, 100 keV. Agatston score behavior was more spurious with median differences ranging 70-204 HU. In general, VMI < 70 keV showed more variation in median biomarker measurement than VMI > 70 keV. CONCLUSION This study characterized the behavior of a fully automated AI CT biomarker toolkit across varying VMI levels obtained with DECT. The data showed relatively little biomarker value change when measured at or greater than 70 keV. Lower VMI datasets should be avoided due to larger deviations in measured value as compared to 70 keV, a level considered equivalent to conventional 120 kVp exams.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giuseppe V Toia
- University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, USA.
| | - John W Garret
- University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, USA
| | - Sean D Rose
- The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, USA
| | | | - Perry J Pickhardt
- University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Pourvaziri A, Mroueh N, Cochran RL, Srinivas Rao S, Kambadakone A. Beyond Conventional CT: Role of Dual-Energy CT in Monitoring Response to Therapy in Abdominal Malignancies. Radiol Imaging Cancer 2025; 7:e240142. [PMID: 40249270 DOI: 10.1148/rycan.240142] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/19/2025]
Abstract
In the era of precision medicine, imaging plays a critical role in evaluating treatment response to various oncologic therapies. For decades, conventional morphologic assessments using cross-sectional imaging have been the standard for monitoring the effectiveness of systemic and locoregional therapies in patients with cancer. However, the development of new functional imaging tools has widened the scope of imaging from mere response assessment to patient selection and outcome prediction. Dual-energy CT (DECT), known for its superior material differentiation capabilities, shows promise in enhancing treatment response evaluation. DECT-based iodine quantification methods are increasingly being investigated as surrogates for assessing tumor vascularity and physiology, which is particularly important in patients undergoing emerging targeted therapies. The purpose of this review article is to discuss the current and emerging role of DECT in assessing treatment response in patients with malignant abdominal tumors. Keywords: CT-Dual Energy, Transcatheter Tumor Therapy, Tumor Response, Iodine Uptake, Therapeutic Response © RSNA, 2025.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ali Pourvaziri
- Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA 02114
| | - Nayla Mroueh
- Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA 02114
| | - Rory L Cochran
- Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA 02114
| | - Shravya Srinivas Rao
- Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA 02114
| | - Avinash Kambadakone
- Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA 02114
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Parakh A, An C, Lennartz S, Rajiah P, Yeh BM, Simeone FJ, Sahani DV, Kambadakone AR. Recognizing and Minimizing Artifacts at Dual-Energy CT. Radiographics 2021; 41:509-523. [PMID: 33606565 PMCID: PMC7924411 DOI: 10.1148/rg.2021200049] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2020] [Revised: 08/22/2020] [Accepted: 09/01/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Dual-energy CT (DECT) is an exciting innovation in CT technology with profound capabilities to improve diagnosis and add value to patient care. Significant advances in this technology over the past decade have improved our ability to successfully adopt DECT into the clinical routine. To enable effective use of DECT, one must be aware of the pitfalls and artifacts related to this technology. Understanding the underlying technical basis of artifacts and the strategies to mitigate them requires optimization of scan protocols and parameters. The ability of radiologists and technologists to anticipate their occurrence and provide recommendations for proper selection of patients, intravenous and oral contrast media, and scan acquisition parameters is key to obtaining good-quality DECT images. In addition, choosing appropriate reconstruction algorithms such as image kernel, postprocessing parameters, and appropriate display settings is critical for preventing quantitative and qualitative interpretive errors. Therefore, knowledge of the appearances of these artifacts is essential to prevent errors and allows maximization of the potential of DECT. In this review article, the authors aim to provide a comprehensive and practical overview of possible artifacts that may be encountered at DECT across all currently available commercial clinical platforms. They also provide a pictorial overview of the diagnostic pitfalls and outline strategies for mitigating or preventing the occurrence of artifacts, when possible. The broadening scope of DECT applications necessitates up-to-date familiarity with these technologies to realize their full diagnostic potential.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anushri Parakh
- From the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.)
| | - Chansik An
- From the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.)
| | - Simon Lennartz
- From the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.)
| | - Prabhakar Rajiah
- From the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.)
| | - Benjamin M. Yeh
- From the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.)
| | - Frank J. Simeone
- From the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.)
| | - Dushyant V. Sahani
- From the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.)
| | - Avinash R. Kambadakone
- From the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114 (A.P., S.L., F.J.S., A.R.K.); Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (C.A., B.M.Y.); Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (S.L.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn (P.R.); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (D.V.S.)
| |
Collapse
|