Subject(s)
Liver Cirrhosis , Pulmonary Fibrosis , Telomere Shortening/physiology , Adult , Diagnosis, Differential , Humans , Hypertension, Portal/diagnosis , Hypertension, Portal/physiopathology , Liver/pathology , Liver Cirrhosis/diagnosis , Liver Cirrhosis/physiopathology , Lung/pathology , Male , Pulmonary Fibrosis/diagnosis , Pulmonary Fibrosis/physiopathology , Spirometry/methods , Syndrome , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methodsABSTRACT
AIM: To compare radiation dose surrogates [volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose-length product (DLP), size-specific dose estimate (SSDE), and effective dose] and image noise in a cohort of patients undergoing hepatocellular carcinoma screening who underwent both single-energy CT (SECT) and dual-energy CT (DECT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant retrospective study, 74 adults (mean age 59.5 years) underwent 64 section SECT (120 kVp and weight-based reference mAs) and 128 section dual-source DECT (100/Sn 140 kVp and CTDIvol, adjusted to match the CDTIvol of the SECT protocol) on different occasions. Noise levels were measured in the liver, inferior vena cava (IVC), retroperitoneal (RP) fat, and aorta. Generalized linear models were constructed to compare dose and noise, adjusting for effective diameter. RESULTS: The total DLP (1371.11 mGy-cm, SD = 527.91) and effective dose (20.57 mSv, SD = 7.92) with SECT were significantly higher than the DLP (864.84 mGy-cm, SD = 322.10) and effective dose (12.97 mSv, SD = 4.83) with DECT (p < 0.001). The differences between SECT and DECT increased as the patient's effective diameter increased (p < 0.001). Noise levels in the liver (22.4 versus 21.9 HU), IVC (22.3 versus 23.4 HU), and RP fat (23.5 versus 23 HU) were similar for DECT and SECT (p > 0.05) but were significantly lower in the aorta for DECT (25.3 versus 26.4 HU; p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: DECT imaging of the abdomen can achieve noise levels comparable to those seen with SECT imaging without a dose penalty to patients.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Hepatocellular/diagnostic imaging , Liver Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Radiation Dosage , Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted/methods , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Adult , Aged , Body Burden , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Image Processing, Computer-Assisted/methods , Male , Middle AgedABSTRACT
Superior soft-tissue contrast affords magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) some advantages compared to computed tomography (CT) in both detection and characterization of focal liver lesions. Because of its relatively recently introduction into clinical practice, a growing number of articles in the literature have demonstrated the usefulness of the hepatobiliary-specific MRI contrast agent gadoxetic acid disodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA) in liver imaging. The purpose of this review is to demonstrate the typical enhancement patterns of the most common liver lesions using Gd-EOB-DTPA in daily clinical scenarios and briefly describe its mechanism of action. Radiologists interpreting liver MRI studies with this agent must be familiar with the appearance of focal lesions in the hepatocyte phase to avoid misinterpretation.
