4.7 Article

Spectral Photon-Counting Computed Tomography (SPCCT): in-vivo single-acquisition multi-phase liver imaging with a dual contrast agent protocol

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-44821-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union Horizon 2020 [643694]
  2. France Life Imaging (FLI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diagnostic imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) requires a liver CT or MRI multiphase acquisition protocol. Patients would benefit from a high-resolution imaging method capable of performing multiphase imaging in a single acquisition without an increase in radiation dose. Spectral Photon-Counting Computed Tomography (SPCCT) has recently emerged as a novel and promising imaging modality in the field of diagnostic radiology. SPCCT is able to distinguish between two contrast agents referred to as multicolor imaging because, when measuring in three or more energy regimes, it can detect and quantify elements with a K-edge in the diagnostic energy range. Based on this capability, we tested the feasibility of a dual-contrast multi-phase liver imaging protocol via the use of iodinated and gadolinated contrast agents on four healthy New Zealand White (NZW) rabbits. To perform a dual-contrast protocol, we injected the agents at different times so that the first contrast agent visualized the portal phase and the second the arterial phase, both of which are mandatory for liver lesion characterization. We demonstrated a sensitive discrimination and quantification of gadolinium within the arteries and iodine within the liver parenchyma. In the hepatic artery, the concentration of gadolinium was much higher than iodine (8.5 +/- 3.9 mg/mL versus 0.7 +/- 0.1mg/mL) contrary to the concentrations found in the liver parenchyma (0.5 +/- 0.3 mg/mL versus 4.2 +/- 0.3 mg/mL). In conclusion, our results confirm that SPCCT allows in-vivo dual contrast qualitative and quantitative multi-phase liver imaging in a single acquisition.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据