4.6 Review

Thoracic Diseases: Technique and Applications of Dual-Energy CT

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 13, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13142440

关键词

dual-energy CT; breast cancer; pulmonary embolism; acute aortic syndromes; lymph nodes; pleural carcinomatosis; thymoma; lung cancer; ILD; esophageal cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) is a promising technological innovation in imaging, providing quantitative data and improving radiologists' confidence in thoracic diseases. This narrative review provides an overview of the applications and advantages of DECT, focusing on recent innovations. DECT is increasingly being used in daily practice for pleural, lung parenchymal, breast, mediastinal, lymph nodes, vascular, and skeletal applications.
Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) is one of the most promising technological innovations made in the field of imaging in recent years. Thanks to its ability to provide quantitative and reproducible data, and to improve radiologists' confidence, especially in the less experienced, its applications are increasing in number and variety. In thoracic diseases, DECT is able to provide well-known benefits, although many recent articles have sought to investigate new perspectives. This narrative review aims to provide the reader with an overview of the applications and advantages of DECT in thoracic diseases, focusing on the most recent innovations. The research process was conducted on the databases of Pubmed and Cochrane. The article is organized according to the anatomical district: the review will focus on pleural, lung parenchymal, breast, mediastinal, lymph nodes, vascular and skeletal applications of DECT. In conclusion, considering the new potential applications and the evidence reported in the latest papers, DECT is progressively entering the daily practice of radiologists, and by reading this simple narrative review, every radiologist will know the state of the art of DECT in thoracic diseases.

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