Cone-beam computed tomography: A new method for imaging of the temporal bone

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 50, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 543-548

  Peltonen, L I ^a   Aarnisalo, A A ^a   Kaser, Y ^a,b   Kortesniemi, M K ^a,b   Robinson, S ^a,c   Suomalainen, A ^a   Jero, J ^a  

^a HELSINKI UNIVERSITY CENTRAL HOSPITAL   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^c Diagnosezentrum Urania   (Austria)

Author keywords

Anatomy; CT; Digital radiography; Ear; Ear nose throat; Head neck; High resolution

Indexed keywords

ANATOMY; CT; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; EAR; EAR/NOSE/THROAT; HEAD/NECK; HIGH RESOLUTION;

BONE; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE REGISTRATION; IMPLANTS (SURGICAL); MEDICAL IMAGING; PHYSIOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGY;

THREE DIMENSIONAL;

ARTICLE; CADAVER; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; EVALUATION; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; METHODOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; TEMPORAL BONE; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

CADAVER; CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TEMPORAL BONE;

EID: 66949172475     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: 16000455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02841850902839700     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Hull GW, Rabbani F, Abbas F, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, Scardino PT. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol 2002; 167:528-34.
2. Catalona WJ, Carvalhal GF, Mager DE, Smith DS. Potency, continence and complication rates in 1,870 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol 1999;162:433-8.
3. Sokoloff MH, Brendler CB. Indications and contraindications for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am 2001;28:535-43.
4. Ross PL, Gerigk C, Gonen M, Yossepowitch O, Cagiannos I, Sogani PC, et al. Comparisons of nomograms and urologists' predictions in prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol 2002;20:82-8.
5. Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Roehrborn CG, Kattan MW. An updated catalog of prostate cancer predictive tools. Cancer 2008;113:3075-99.
6. Fuchsjäger M, Shukla-Dave A, Akin O, Barentsz J, Hricak H. Prostate cancer imaging. Acta Radiol 2008; 49:107-20.
7. Fütterer JJ, Scheenen TW, Huisman HJ, KlompDW, van Dorsten FA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. Initial experience of 3 tesla endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging and 1H-spectroscopic imaging of the prostate. Invest Radiol 2004;39:671-80.
8. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 2001;58:843-8.
9. Sobin LH, Wittekind C. Prostate. In: Sobin LH, Wittekind C, editors. UICC TNM classification of malignant tumors. Sixth edition. New York: Wiley; 2002. p. 184-7.
10. Gleason DJ, Mellinger GT, Veterans Administration Cooperative Urological Research Group. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974;111:58-64.
11. Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 1982;128:492-7.
12. McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA. Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. Am J Surg Pathol 1988;12:897-906.
13. Ikonen S, Kivisaari L, Vehmas T, Tervahartiala P, Salo JO, Taari K, et al. Optimal timing of post-biopsy MR imaging of the prostate. Acta Radiol 2001;42:70-3.
14. Futterer JJ. MR imaging in local staging of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 2007;63:328-34.
15. Rorvik J, Halvorsen OJ, Albrektsen G, Ersland L, Daehlin L, Haukaas S. MRI with an endorectal coil for staging of clinically localized prostate cancer prior of radical prostatectomy. Eur Radiol 1999;9:29-34.
16. Mackinnon A. A spreadsheet for the calculation of comprehensive statistics for the assessment of diagnostic tests and inter-rater agreement. Comput Biol Med 2000; 30:127-34.
17. Graefen M, Augustin H, Palisaar J, Haese A, Michl U, Noldus J, et al. Who predicts better: a clinician or a nomogram? J Urol 2003;169 Suppl 4:290-303.
18. Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, et al. Validation of Partin tables for predicting pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2000;164:1591-5.
19. Graefen M, Augustin H, Karakiewicz PI, Hammerer PG, Haese A, Palisaar J, et al. Can predictive models for prostate cancer patients derived in the United States of America be utilized in European patients? A validation study of the Partin tables. Eur Urol 2003;43:6-10.
20. Augustin H, Eggert T, Wenske S, Karakiewicz PI, Palisaar J, Daghofer F, et al. Comparison of accuracy between the Partin tables of 1997 and 2001 to predict final pathological stage in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2004;171:177-81.
21. Kim CK, Park BK. Update of prostate magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2008;32:163-72.
22. Torricelli P, Cinquantini F, Ligabue G, Bianchi G, Sighinolfi P, Romagnoli R. Comparative evaluation between external phased array coil at 3 T and endorectal coil at 1.5 T: preliminary results. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006;30:355-61.
23. Sosna J, Pedrosa I, Dewolf WC, Mahallati H, Lenkinski RE, Rofsky NM. MR imaging of the prostate at 3 Tesla: comparison of an external phased-array coil to imaging with an endorectal coil at 1.5 Tesla. Acad Radiol 2004; 11:857-62.
24. Park BK, Kim B, Kim CK, Lee HM, Kwon GY. Comparison of phased-array 3.0-T and endorectal 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of local staging accuracy for prostate cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007;31:534-8.
25. Heijmink SW, Fütterer JJ, Hambrock T, Takahashi S, Scheenen TW, Huisman HJ, et al. Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 T - comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance. Radiology 2007;244:184-95.
26. Fütterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, Jager GJ, Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa CA, Witjes JA, et al. Prostate cancer: local staging at 3-T endorectal MR imaging - early experience. Radiology 2006;238:184-91.
27. Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, Laheij RJ, Verbeek AL, van Lier HJ, Barentsz JO. Local staging of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2002;12:2294-302.
28. Hricak H, Wang L, Wei DC, Coakley FV, Akin O, Reuter VE, et al. The role of preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in the decision regarding whether to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 2004; 100:2655-63.
29. D'Amico AV, Schnall M, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Tomaszewski JE, et al. Endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging identifies locally advanced prostate cancer in select patients with clinically localized disease. Urology 1998;51:449-54.
30. Jager GJ, Severens JL, Thornbury JR, de La Rosette JJ, Ruijs SH, Barentsz JO. Prostate cancer staging: should MR imaging be used? A decision analytic approach. Radiology 2000;215:445-51.
31. Noldus J, Graefen M, Haese A, Henke RP, Hammerer P, Huland H. Stage migration in clinically localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2000;38:74-8.
32. Augustin H, Auprich M, Stummvoll P, Lipsky K, Pummer K, Petritsch P. Shift of tumor features in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy since the beginning of the PSA era. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2006;118:348-54.