4.7 Article

Dual-energy CT-based iodine quantification for differentiating pulmonary artery sarcoma from pulmonary thromboembolism: a pilot study

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 26, 期 9, 页码 3162-3170

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-4140-2

关键词

Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT); Pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE); Pulmonary artery sarcoma (PAS); Quantitative analysis; Differential diagnosis

资金

  1. Yonsei University College of Medicine [6-2012-0105]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to determine whether dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) angiography could differentiate pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) from pulmonary artery sarcoma (PAS). We prospectively enrolled 19 patients that had a filling defect in the main pulmonary artery on DECT. Six patients who had PAS and underwent DECT were retrospectively enrolled for comparison. Pathological results or follow-up CT after anticoagulation therapy were used to make the final diagnosis. Two investigators measured the following parameters at the filling defect in the main pulmonary artery: CT attenuation density [Hounsfield units (HU)], iodine-related HU (IHU) and iodine concentration (IC, mg/ml). From a total of 25 patients (M:F = 10:15; mean age, 65 years old), 19 were categorised into the PTE group and six were categorised into the PAS group. The mean HU values were not significantly different between the PTE and PAS groups (45.5 +/- 15.9 vs 47.1 +/- 9.2 HU; P = 0.776). However, the mean IHU and IC values of the lesions were significantly different between the PTE and PAS groups (10.6 +/- 7.2 vs 27.9 +/- 9.1 HU; P = 0.004, and 0.61 +/- 0.39 vs 1.49 +/- 0.57; P = 0.001). DECT angiography using a quantitative analytic methodology can be used to differentiate PTE and PAS. aEuro cent DECT can be useful for differentiation of PAS and PTE. aEuro cent With quantitative analysis, DECT offers tissue characterisation by detecting lesion parameter increases. aEuro cent The patients without predisposing factors for PTE can be candidates for DECT.

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