Liver lesions: Improved detection with dual-detector-array CT and routine 2.5-mm thin collimation

Radiology

Volumn 209, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 417-426

  Weg, Noah ^a   Scheer, Melissa R ^a   Gabor, Michael P ^a  

^a Dr Noah Weg and Associates   (United States)

Author keywords

Computed tomography (CT), helical; Computed tomography (CT), technology; Computed tomography (CT), thin section; Liver neoplasms, CT

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COLLIMATOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMAN; LIVER DISEASE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0031757970     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.209.2.9807568     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Bluemke DA, Soyer P, Fishman EK. Spiral CT evaluation of liver tumors. In: Fishman EK, Jeffrey RB, eds. Spiral CT principles, techniques and clinical applications. New York, NY: Lippincott-Raven, 1996; 25-44.
2. Costello P, Anderson W, Blume D. Pulmonary nodule: evaluation with spiral volumetric CT. Radiology 1991; 179:875-876.
3. Kalender WA, Polacin A, Suss C. A comparison of conventional and spiral CT: an experimental study on the detection of spherical lesions. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1994; 18:167-176.
4. Brink JA, Heiken JP, Balfe DM, Sagel SS, DiCroce J, Vannier MW. Spiral CT: decreased spatial resolution in vivo due to broadening of section-sensitivity profile. Radiology 1992; 185:469-474.
5. Glover GH, Pelc NC. Nonlinear partial volume artifacts in x-ray computed tomography. Med Phys 1980; 7:238-248.
6. Meaney TF, Raudkivi U, McIntyre WJ, et al. Detection of low-contrast lesions in computed body tomography: an experimental study of simulated lesions. Radiology 1980; 134:149-154.
7. Kalender WA. Principles and performance of spiral CT. In: Goldman LW, Fowlkes JB, eds. Medical CT & ultrasound: current technology and applications. College Park, Md: American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 1995; 375-397.
8. Polacin A, Kalender WA, Marchal G. Evaluation of section sensitivity profiles and image noise in spiral CT. Radiology 1992; 185:29-35.
9. Warren RC, Pandya YV. Effect of window width and viewing distance in CT display. Br J Radiol 1982; 55:72-74.
10. Seltzer SE, Swensson RG, Judy PF, Nawfel RD. Size discrimination in computed tomographic images: effects of feature contrast and display window. Invest Radiol 1988; 23:455-462.
11. Shultz GW. Computed tomography displays. In: Newton TH, Potts DG, eds. Radiology of the skull and brain: technical aspects of computed tomography. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby, 1981; 4173-4199.
12. Liang Y, Kruger RA. Dual-slice spiral versus single-slice spiral: comparison of the physical performance of two computed tomography scanners. Med Phys 1996; 23:205-220.
13. Hanson KM. Noise and contrast discrimination in computed tomography. In: Newton TH, Potts DG, eds. Radiology of the skull and brain: technical aspects of computed tomography. St Louis Mo: Mosby, 1981; 3944-3954.
14. Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media. Manual on iodinated contrast media. 3rd ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1998; 61-62.
15. Silverman PM, O'Malley J, Tefft MC, Cooper C, Zeman RK. Conspicuity of hepatic metastases on helical CT: effect of different time delays between contrast administration and scanning. AJR 1995; 164:619-623.
16. van Leeuwen MS, Noordzij J, Feldberg MAM, Hennipman AH, Doornewaard H. Focal liver lesions: characterization with triphasic spiral CT. Radiology 1996; 201: 327-336.
17. Turnier H, Houdek PV, Trefler M. Measurements of the partial volume phenomenon. Comput Tomogr 1979; 3:213-219.
18. Barnes JE. Characteristics and control of contrast in CT. RadioGraphics 1992; 12: 825-837.
19. Wang G, Vannier MW. Longitudinal resolution in volumetric x-ray computerized tomography: analytical comparison between conventional and helical computerized tomography. Med Phys 1994; 21: 429-433.
20. Hanson KM. Noise and contrast discrimination in computed tomography. In: Newton TH, Potts DG, eds. Radiology of the skull and brain: technical aspects of computed tomography. St Louis, Mo: Mosby, 1981; 3950-3952.
21. Goodenough DJ. Psychophysical perception of computed tomography images. In: Newton TH, Potts DG, eds. Radiology of the skull and brain: technical aspects of computed tomography. St Louis, Mo: Mosby, 1981; 4010-4011.
22. Kalender WA, Polacin A. Physical performance characteristics of spiral CT scanning. Med Phys 1991; 18:910-915.
23. Beard DV, Molina PL, Muller KE, et al. Interpretation time of serial chest CT examinations with stacked-metaphor workstation versus film alternator. Radiology 1995; 197:753-758.
24. Hirota H, Shimamoto K, Yamakawa K, et al. Clinical evaluation of newly developed CRT viewing station: CT reading and observer's performance. Comput Med Imaging Graph 1995; 19:281-285.
25. Bluemke DA, Soyer P, Fishman EK. Helical (spiral) CT of the liver. Radiol Clin North Am 1995; 33:863-886.