A Method for Reducing Variability Across Dual-Energy CT Manufacturers in Quantification of Low Iodine Content Levels

Quantitative multi-energy CT in oncology: State of the art and future directions

Multi-energy computed tomography (CT) involves acquisition of two or more CT measurements with distinct energy spectra. Using the differential attenuation of tissues and materials at different X-ray energies, multi-energy CT allows distinction of tissues and materials. Multi-energy technology encompasses different types of CT systems, such as dual-energy CT and photon-counting CT, that can use information from the energy and type of material present in acquired images to create multiple datasets. These scanners have overcome many of the limitations of conventional CT, making it possible to improve the diagnostic performance of CT and expand its use to new applications through better tissue characterization and multiple quantitative parameters. Quantitative imaging biomarkers based on multi-energy CT have enormous potential in oncologic imaging, from the diagnosis and characterization of tumor phenotypes to the evaluation of the response to treatment. Nevertheless, implementing these techniques in clinical practice remains challenging. This article reviews the basic principles underlying multi-energy CT and the most recent technical developments in these systems together with their advantages and limitations to establish the value of quantitative imaging derived from multi-energy CT in the field of oncology.

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.

What to Expect (and What Not) from Dual-Energy CT Imaging Now and in the Future?

Dual-energy CT (DECT) imaging has broadened the potential of CT imaging by offering multiple postprocessing datasets with a single acquisition at more than one energy level. DECT shows profound capabilities to improve diagnosis based on its superior material differentiation and its quantitative value. However, the potential of dual-energy imaging remains relatively untapped, possibly due to its intricate workflow and the intrinsic technical limitations of DECT. Knowing the clinical advantages of dual-energy imaging and recognizing its limitations and pitfalls is necessary for an appropriate clinical use. The aims of this paper are to review the physical and technical bases of DECT acquisition and analysis, to discuss the advantages and limitations of DECT in different clinical scenarios, to review the technical constraints in material labeling and quantification, and to evaluate the cutting-edge applications of DECT imaging, including artificial intelligence, qualitative and quantitative imaging biomarkers, and DECT-derived radiomics and radiogenomics.

Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Applications in the Genitourinary Tract

By virtue of material differentiation capabilities afforded through dedicated postprocessing algorithms, dual-energy CT (DECT) has been shown to provide benefit in the evaluation of various diseases. In this article, we review the diagnostic use of DECT in the assessment of genitourinary diseases, with emphasis on its role in renal stone characterization, incidental renal and adrenal lesion characterization, retroperitoneal trauma, reduction of radiation, and contrast dose and cost-effectiveness potential. We also discuss future perspectives of the DECT scanning mode, including the use of novel contrast injection strategies and photon-counting detector computed tomography.