Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (12) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (12)
Language
- English (12)
Has Fulltext
- yes (12)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (12)
Keywords
Objectives: To compare radiation dose and image quality of single-energy (SECT) and dual-energy (DECT) head and neck CT examinations performed with second- and third-generation dual-source CT (DSCT) in matched patient cohorts. Methods: 200 patients (mean age 55.1 ± 16.9 years) who underwent venous phase head and neck CT with a vendor-preset protocol were retrospectively divided into four equal groups (n = 50) matched by gender and BMI: second (Group A, SECT, 100-kV; Group B, DECT, 80/Sn140-kV), and third-generation DSCT (Group C, SECT, 100-kV; Group D, DECT, 90/Sn150-kV). Assess- ment of radiation dose was performed for an average scan length of 27 cm. Contrast-to-noise ratio measure- ments and dose-independent figure-of-merit calcu- lations of the submandibular gland, thyroid, internal jugular vein, and common carotid artery were analyzed quantitatively. Qualitative image parameters were evalu- ated regarding overall image quality, artifacts and reader confidence using 5-point Likert scales. Results: Effective radiation dose (ED) was not signifi- cantly different between SECT and DECT acquisition for each scanner generation (p = 0.10). Significantly lower effective radiation dose (p < 0.01) values were observed for third-generation DSCT groups C (1.1 ± 0.2 mSv) and D (1.0 ± 0.3 mSv) compared to second-generation DSCT groups A (1.8 ± 0.1 mSv) and B (1.6 ± 0.2 mSv). Figure-of- merit/contrast-to-noise ratio analysis revealed superior results for third-generation DECT Group D compared to all other groups. Qualitative image parameters showed non-significant differences between all groups (p > 0.06). Conclusion: Contrast-enhanced head and neck DECT can be performed with second- and third-generation DSCT systems without radiation penalty or impaired image quality compared with SECT, while third-generation DSCT is the most dose efficient acquisition method. Advances in knowledge: Differences in radiation dose between SECT and DECT of the dose-vulnerable head and neck region using DSCT systems have not been evaluated so far. Therefore, this study directly compares radiation dose and image quality of standard SECT and DECT protocols of second- and third-generation DSCT platforms.
Background: This prospective randomized trial is designed to compare the performance of conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) using Lipiodol-only with additional use of degradable starch microspheres (DSM) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in BCLC-stage-B based on metric tumor response. Methods: Sixty-one patients (44 men; 17 women; range 44–85) with HCC were evaluated in this IRB-approved HIPPA compliant study. The treatment protocol included three TACE-sessions in 4-week intervals, in all cases with Mitomycin C as a chemotherapeutic agent. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed prior to the first and 4 weeks after the last TACE. Two treatment groups were determined using a randomization sheet: In 30 patients, TACE was performed using Lipiodol only (group 1). In 31 cases Lipiodol was combined with DSMs (group 2). Response according to tumor volume, diameter, mRECIST criteria, and the development of necrotic areas were analyzed and compared using the Mann–Whitney-U, Kruskal–Wallis-H-test, and Spearman-Rho. Survival data were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier estimator. Results: A mean overall tumor volume reduction of 21.45% (± 62.34%) was observed with an average tumor volume reduction of 19.95% in group 1 vs. 22.95% in group 2 (p = 0.653). Mean diameter reduction was measured with 6.26% (± 34.75%), for group 1 with 11.86% vs. 4.06% in group 2 (p = 0.678). Regarding mRECIST criteria, group 1 versus group 2 showed complete response in 0 versus 3 cases, partial response in 2 versus 7 cases, stable disease in 21 versus 17 cases, and progressive disease in 3 versus 1 cases (p = 0.010). Estimated overall survival was in mean 33.4 months (95% CI 25.5–41.4) for cTACE with Lipiosol plus DSM, and 32.5 months (95% CI 26.6–38.4), for cTACE with Lipiodol-only (p = 0.844), respectively. Conclusions: The additional application of DSM during cTACE showed a significant benefit in tumor response according to mRECIST compared to cTACE with Lipiodol-only. No benefit in survival time was observed.