Photon-counting detector (PCD) CT is an emerging technology that has shown tremendous progress in the last decade. Various types of PCD CT systems have been developed to investigate the benefits of ...this technology, which include reduced electronic noise, increased contrast-to-noise ratio with iodinated contrast material and radiation dose efficiency, reduced beam-hardening and metal artifacts, extremely high spatial resolution (33 line pairs per centimeter), simultaneous multienergy data acquisition, and the ability to image with and differentiate among multiple CT contrast agents. PCD technology is described and compared with conventional CT detector technology. With the use of a whole-body research PCD CT system as an example, PCD technology and its use for in vivo high-spatial-resolution multienergy CT imaging is discussed. The potential clinical applications, diagnostic benefits, and challenges associated with this technology are then discussed, and examples with phantom, animal, and patient studies are provided.
RSNA, 2019.
Background
The rapid development and complexity of new x‐ray computed tomography (CT) technologies and the need for evidence‐based optimization of image quality with respect to radiation and contrast ...media dose call for an updated approach towards CT performance evaluation.
Aims
This report offers updated testing guidelines for testing CT systems with an enhanced focus on the operational performance including iterative reconstructions and automatic exposure control (AEC) techniques.
Materials and Methods
The report was developed based on a comprehensive review of best methods and practices in the scientific literature. The detailed methods include the assessment of 1) CT noise (magnitude, texture, nonuniformity, inhomogeneity), 2) resolution (task transfer function under varying conditions and its scalar reflections), 3) task‐based performance (detectability, estimability), and 4) AEC performance (spatial, noise, and mA concordance of attenuation and exposure modulation). The methods include varying reconstruction and tube current modulation conditions, standardized testing protocols, and standardized quantities and metrology to facilitate tracking, benchmarking, and quantitative comparisons.
Results
The methods, implemented in cited publications, are robust to provide a representative reflection of CT system performance as used operationally in a clinical facility. The methods include recommendations for phantoms and phantom image analysis.
Discussion
In line with the current professional trajectory of the field toward quantitation and operational engagement, the stated methods offer quantitation that is more predictive of clinical performance than specification‐based approaches. They can pave the way to approach performance testing of new CT systems not only in terms of acceptance testing (i.e., verifying a device meets predefined specifications), but also system commissioning (i.e., determining how the system can be used most effectively in clinical practice).
Conclusion
We offer a set of common testing procedures that can be utilized towards the optimal clinical utilization of CT imaging devices, benchmarking across varying systems and times, and a basis to develop future performance‐based criteria for CT imaging.
Use of computed tomography (CT) in medicine comes with the responsibility of its appropriate (wise) and safe (gentle) application to obtain required diagnostic information with the lowest possible ...dose of radiation. CT provides useful information that may not be available with other imaging modalities in many clinical situations in children and adults. Inappropriate or excessive use of CT should be avoided, especially if required information can be obtained in an accurate and time-efficient manner with other modalities that require a lower radiation dose, or non-radiation-based imaging modalities such as ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. In addition to appropriate use of CT, the radiology community also must monitor scanning practices and protocols. When appropriate, high-contrast regions and lesions should be scanned with reduced dose, but overly zealous dose reduction should be avoided for assessment of low-contrast lesions. Patients' cross-sectional body size should be taken into account to deliver lower radiation dose to smaller patients and children. Wise use of CT scanning with gentle application of radiation dose can help maximize the diagnostic value of CT, as well as address concerns about potential risks of radiation. In this article, key concepts in CT radiation dose are reviewed, including CT dose descriptors; radiation doses from CT procedures; and factors and technologies that affect radiation dose and image quality, including their use in creating dose-saving protocols. Also discussed are the contributions of radiation awareness campaigns such as the Image Gently and Image Wisely campaigns and the American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry initiatives.
To determine patient, institution, and machine characteristics that contribute to variation in radiation doses used for computed tomography (CT).
Prospective cohort study.
Data were assembled and ...analyzed from the University of California San Francisco CT International Dose Registry.
Standardized data from over 2.0 million CT examinations of adults who underwent CT between November 2015 and August 2017 from 151 institutions, across seven countries (Switzerland, Netherlands, Germany, United Kingdom, United States, Israel, and Japan).
Mean effective doses and proportions of high dose examinations for abdomen, chest, combined chest and abdomen, and head CT were determined by patient characteristics (sex, age, and size), type of institution (trauma center, care provision 24 hours per day and seven days per week, academic, private), institutional practice volume, machine factors (manufacturer, model), country, and how scanners were used, before and after adjustment for patient characteristics, using hierarchical linear and logistic regression. High dose examinations were defined as CT scans with doses above the 75th percentile defined during a baseline period.
The mean effective dose and proportion of high dose examinations varied substantially across institutions. The doses varied modestly (10-30%) by type of institution and machine characteristics after adjusting for patient characteristics. By contrast, even after adjusting for patient characteristics, wide variations in radiation doses across countries persisted, with a fourfold range in mean effective dose for abdomen CT examinations (7.0-25.7 mSv) and a 17-fold range in proportion of high dose examinations (4-69%). Similar variation across countries was observed for chest (mean effective dose 1.7-6.4 mSv, proportion of high dose examinations 1-26%) and combined chest and abdomen CT (10.0-37.9 mSv, 2-78%). Doses for head CT varied less (1.4-1.9 mSv, 8-27%). In multivariable models, the dose variation across countries was primarily attributable to institutional decisions regarding technical parameters (that is, how the scanners were used).
CT protocols and radiation doses vary greatly across countries and are primarily attributable to local choices regarding technical parameters, rather than patient, institution, or machine characteristics. These findings suggest that the optimization of doses to a consistent standard should be possible.
Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03000751.
The respiratory illness caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to present diagnostic challenges. Our 2020 edition of this review showed thoracic (chest) imaging to be sensitive and moderately ...specific in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this update, we include new relevant studies, and have removed studies with case-control designs, and those not intended to be diagnostic test accuracy studies.
To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging (computed tomography (CT), X-ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected COVID-19.
We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 30 September 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions.
We included studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19 and that reported estimates of test accuracy or provided data from which we could compute estimates.
The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain-list. We presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity using paired forest plots, and we summarised pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented the uncertainty of accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
We included 51 studies with 19,775 participants suspected of having COVID-19, of whom 10,155 (51%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Forty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality each, and four studies evaluated two imaging modalities each. All studies used RT-PCR as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19, with 47 studies using only RT-PCR and four studies using a combination of RT-PCR and other criteria (such as clinical signs, imaging tests, positive contacts, and follow-up phone calls) as the reference standard. Studies were conducted in Europe (33), Asia (13), North America (3) and South America (2); including only adults (26), all ages (21), children only (1), adults over 70 years (1), and unclear (2); in inpatients (2), outpatients (32), and setting unclear (17). Risk of bias was high or unclear in thirty-two (63%) studies with respect to participant selection, 40 (78%) studies with respect to reference standard, 30 (59%) studies with respect to index test, and 24 (47%) studies with respect to participant flow. For chest CT (41 studies, 16,133 participants, 8110 (50%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 25.4% to 97.4%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 87.9% (95% CI 84.6 to 90.6) and the pooled specificity was 80.0% (95% CI 74.9 to 84.3). There was no statistical evidence indicating that reference standard conduct and definition for index test positivity were sources of heterogeneity for CT studies. Nine chest CT studies (2807 participants, 1139 (41%) cases) used the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) scoring system, which has five thresholds to define index test positivity. At a CO-RADS threshold of 5 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 41.5% to 77.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 67.0% (95% CI 56.4 to 76.2); the specificity ranged from 83.5% to 96.2%; and the pooled specificity was 91.3% (95% CI 87.6 to 94.0). At a CO-RADS threshold of 4 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 92.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 83.5% (95% CI 74.4 to 89.7); the specificity ranged from 77.2% to 90.4% and the pooled specificity was 83.6% (95% CI 80.5 to 86.4). For chest X-ray (9 studies, 3694 participants, 2111 (57%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 51.9% to 94.4% and specificity ranged from 40.4% to 88.9%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 80.6% (95% CI 69.1 to 88.6) and the pooled specificity was 71.5% (95% CI 59.8 to 80.8). For ultrasound of the lungs (5 studies, 446 participants, 211 (47%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 68.2% to 96.8% and specificity ranged from 21.3% to 78.9%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 86.4% (95% CI 72.7 to 93.9) and the pooled specificity was 54.6% (95% CI 35.3 to 72.6). Based on an indirect comparison using all included studies, chest CT had a higher specificity than ultrasound. For indirect comparisons of chest CT and chest X-ray, or chest X-ray and ultrasound, the data did not show differences in specificity or sensitivity.
Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Ultrasound is sensitive but not specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for excluding COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should pre-define positive imaging findings, include direct comparisons of the various modalities of interest in the same participant population, and implement improved reporting practices.
Treatment of orofacial tumors in dogs is associated with high morbidity and reliable prognostic factors are lacking. Dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography (DCECT) can be used to assess tumor ...perfusion. The objectives of this study were to describe the perfusion parameters of different types of orofacial tumors and to describe the changes in perfusion parameters during radiotherapy (RT) in a subset of them.
11 dogs with orofacial tumors prospectively recruited.
All dogs had baseline DCECT to assess blood volume (BV), blood flow (BF), and transit time (TT). Five dogs had repeat DCECT during megavoltage RT.
5 squamous cell carcinomas, 3 sarcomas, 1 melanoma, 1 histiocytic sarcoma, and 1 acanthomatous ameloblastoma were included. Blood volume and BF were higher in squamous cell carcinomas than in sarcomas, although no statistical analysis was performed. At repeat DCECT, 4 dogs showed a reduction in the size of their tumor during RT. Among these dogs, 3 showed an increase in BV and BF and 1 a decrease in these parameters between the baseline and the follow-up DCECT. The only dog whose tumor increased in size between the first and the second DCECT showed a decrease in BV and BF.
Perfusion parameters derived from DCECT were described in a series of dogs with various types of orofacial tumors. The results suggest that epithelial tumors could have higher BV and BF than mesenchymal tumors, although larger sample sizes are needed to support these preliminary findings.
Abstract Background In a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial, 4,146 patients were randomized to receive standard care or standard care plus coronary computed tomography angiography ...(CCTA). Objectives The purpose of this study was to explore the consequences of CCTA-assisted diagnosis on invasive coronary angiography, preventive treatments, and clinical outcomes. Methods In post hoc analyses, we assessed changes in invasive coronary angiography, preventive treatments, and clinical outcomes using national electronic health records. Results Despite similar overall rates (409 vs. 401; p = 0.451), invasive angiography was less likely to demonstrate normal coronary arteries (20 vs. 56; hazard ratios HRs: 0.39 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.23 to 0.68; p < 0.001) but more likely to show obstructive coronary artery disease (283 vs. 230; HR: 1.29 95% CI: 1.08 to 1.55; p = 0.005) in those allocated to CCTA. More preventive therapies (283 vs. 74; HR: 4.03 95% CI: 3.12 to 5.20; p < 0.001) were initiated after CCTA, with each drug commencing at a median of 48 to 52 days after clinic attendance. From the median time for preventive therapy initiation (50 days), fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction was halved in patients allocated to CCTA compared with those assigned to standard care (17 vs. 34; HR: 0.50 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.88; p = 0.020). Cumulative 6-month costs were slightly higher with CCTA: difference $462 (95% CI: $303 to $621). Conclusions In patients with suspected angina due to coronary heart disease, CCTA leads to more appropriate use of invasive angiography and alterations in preventive therapies that were associated with a halving of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction. (Scottish COmputed Tomography of the HEART Trial SCOT-HEART; NCT01149590 )
PDF
