4.6 Article

Quantitative Assessment of Radiologically Indeterminate Local Colonic Wall Thickening on Iodine Density Images Using Dual-Layer Spectral Detector CT

期刊

ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY
卷 28, 期 10, 页码 1368-1374

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2020.06.012

关键词

Tomography X-ray computed Colonic diseases; Colonic neoplasms

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study quantitatively assessed local colonic wall thickening using dual-layer spectral detector computed tomography, and found that IC and NIC values can be used to identify LCWT caused by colon neoplasia with satisfactory diagnostic value.
Rationale and Objectives: To assess local colonic wall thickening (LCWT, thicknesses: >3 mm, lengths: <5 cm) quantitatively on iodine density images using dual-layer spectral detector computed tomography (DLSCT). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 80 patients who underwent both conventional contrast-enhanced CT and colonoscopy within one month. The region of interest was delineated on the chosen images with the iodine density image model. The iodine concentration (IC), normalized IC (NIC), and thickness of the colonic wall in the lesion area were compared between the pathological and nonpathological groups. Results: There were 50 patients whose area of LCWT discovered at CT scans displayed colon neoplasia at colonoscopy. The other 30 patients with LCWT on CT images showed normal appearances during colonoscopy. There was no significant difference in colonic wall thickness between the pathological and nonpathological (p> 0.05) LCWT groups. The IC and NIC of patients with colon neoplasms were significantly higher than those with nonpathologic LCWT (both p< 0.001). The ROC curve showed that when IC and NIC was 1.49 mg/mL and 0.33, the sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing colon neoplasm were 91.5% and 75.8%, 85.1% and 84.8%, respectively. Conclusion: IC and NIC values from DLSCT could provide a satisfied diagnostic value to identify LCWT caused by colon neoplasia.

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

4.6
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