This poster is published under an
open license. Please read the
disclaimer for further details.
Keywords:
Artifacts, Radiation safety, Computer Applications-Detection, diagnosis, CT, Radioprotection / Radiation dose, Musculoskeletal system, Musculoskeletal bone
Authors:
L. Filograna1, M. la Torre1, N. Magarelli1, A. Leone1, R. D'Amico2, C. De Waure1, G. Calabrò1, M. Thali3, L. Bonomo1; 1Rome/IT, 2Roma (RM)/IT, 3Zurich/CH
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2016/C-0046
Results
Both inter-reader (qualitative analysis) and intra-reader agreement (quantitative analysis) showed excellent resuts (k 0.948; p < 0.001 and ICC 0.983; 95%CI = 0.981–0.986,
respectively).
The results of qualitative and quantitative analysis can be summarized as follows:
1. OPTkeV values within each group were found effectively to be the optimal settings for qualitatively reducing metallic artifacts in all the three groups if compared with other monoenergetic reconstructions and SECT images (Figure 3) (Table 3,
4 and 5).
The OPTkeV images of 5.0 mGy acquisitions provided percentages of images with score 1 and 2 of,
respectively,
36% and 30%,
against 0% and 33.3% of the corresponding SECT images of 10 and 20 mGy acquisitions,
and against 0% and 26.7% of SECT images of 5.0 mGy acquisitions (Table 4 and 5).
With respect to quantitative analysis,
the comparison between SECT and OPTkeV,
a significant difference was shown (p < 0.001),
with OPTkeV images achieving higher CT numbers (i.e.
reduction of streak artifact density) than SECT (Median: –110.00 (Interquartile range (IQR) 214.25) and –319.50 (IQR 314.00),
respectively).
2.
However,
the most important result is that reduced-dose DECT is superior to standard-dose SECT in reducing metal artefact.
This can be deduced if the qualitative evaluations of OPTkeV reconstructions in group 3 (5.0 mGy dose) and the corresponding SECT images obtained at 20.0 mGy and 10.0 mGy are compared (Figure 4) (Table 4,
5 and 6).
The tables 4 and 5 show that the OPTkeV reconstructions of 5.0 mGy acquisitions provided percentages of images with score 1 and 2 of,
respectively,
36% and 30%,
against 0% and 33.3% of the corresponding SECT images in groups 1 and 2 (Tables 4 and 5).
Moreover,
the table 6 shows that the 80% and 90% of the images scored 1 with DECT OPTkeV images of the group 3 were scored 2 with SECT of the group 2 and 1,
respectively.