CT of the pancreas: Comparison of anatomic structure depiction, image quality, and radiation exposure between 320-detector volumetric images and 64-detector helical images

Radiology

Volumn 260, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 139-147

  Goshima, Satoshi ^a   Kanematsu, Masayuki ^a   Nishibori, Hironori ^b   Sakurai, Kota ^b   Miyazawa, Daisuke ^b   Watanabe, Haruo ^a   Kondo, Hiroshi ^a   Shiratori, Yoshimune ^a   Onozuka, Minoru ^c   Moriyama, Noriyuki ^d   Bae, Kyongtae T ^e  

^a GIFU UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^b Kizawa Memorial Hospital   (Japan)

^c KANAGAWA DENTAL COLLEGE   (Japan)

^d NATIONAL CANCER CENTER HOSPITAL   (Japan)

^e UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

IOHEXOL;

ABDOMINAL AORTA; ABDOMINAL WALL; ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ANATOMICAL VARIATION; ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PANCREATOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SPIRAL COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY;

ADULT; AGED; BODY BURDEN; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; IOHEXOL; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PANCREATIC DISEASES; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 79959559275     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11101459     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Freeny PC, Marks WM, Ryan JA, Traverso LW. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: diagnosis and staging with dynamic CT. Radiology 1988;166(1 Pt 1):125-133. (Pubitemid 18027058)
2. Freeny PC. Radiologic diagnosis and staging of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Radiol Clin North Am 1989;27(1):121-128. (Pubitemid 19013180)
3. Zeiss J, Coombs RJ, Bielke D. CT presentation and staging accuracy of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Int J Pancreatol 1990;7(1-3):49-53.
4. Dupuy DE, Costello P, Ecker CP. Spiral CT of the pancreas. Radiology 1992;183(3):815-818.
5. Megibow AJ. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: designing the examination to evaluate the clinical questions. Radiology 1992;183(2):297-303.
6. Freeny PC, Traverso LW, Ryan JA. Diagnosis and staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma with dynamic computed tomography. Am J Surg 1993;165(5):600-606. (Pubitemid 23278675)
7. Fuhrman GM, Charnsangavej C, Abbruzzese JL, et al. Thin-section contrast-enhanced computed tomography accurately predicts the resectability of malignant pancreatic neoplasms. Am J Surg 1994;167(1):104-111; discussion 111-113.
8. Müller MF, Meyenberger C, Bertschinger P, Schaer R, Marincek B. Pancreatic tumors: evaluation with endoscopic US, CT, and MR imaging. Radiology 1994;190(3):745-751.
9. Bluemke DA, Cameron JL, Hruban RH, et al. Potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: spiral CT assessment with surgical and pathologic correlation. Radiology 1995;197(2):381-385.
10. Hommeyer SC, Freeny PC, Crabo LG. Carcinoma of the head of the pancreas: evaluation of the pancreaticoduodenal veins with dynamic CT - potential for improved accuracy in staging. Radiology 1995;196(1):233-238.
11. Megibow AJ, Zhou XH, Rotterdam H, et al. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: CT versus MR imaging in the evaluation of resectability - report of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology 1995;195(2):327-332.
12. Sironi S, De Cobelli F, Zerbi A, Balzano G, Di Carlo V, DelMaschio A. Pancreatic carcinoma: MR assessment of tumor invasion of the peripancreatic vessels. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1995;19(5):739-744.
13. Diehl SJ, Lehmann KJ, Sadick M, Lachmann R, Georgi M. Pancreatic cancer: value of dual-phase helical CT in assessing resectability. Radiology 1998;206(2):373-378. (Pubitemid 28112950)
14. Fletcher JG, Wiersema MJ, Farrell MA, et al. Pancreatic malignancy: value of arterial, pancreatic, and hepatic phase imaging with multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2003;229(1):81-90. (Pubitemid 37152109)
15. Hollett MD, Jorgensen MJ, Jeffrey RB Jr. Quantitative evaluation of pancreatic enhancement during dual-phase helical CT. Radiology 1995;195(2):359-361.
16. Bonaldi VM, Bret PM, Atri M, Garcia P, Reinhold C. A comparison of two injection protocols using helical and dynamic acquisitions in CT examinations of the pancreas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167(1):49-55. (Pubitemid 26196906)
17. McNulty NJ, Francis IR, Platt JF, Cohan RH, Korobkin M, Gebremariam A. Multi-detector row helical CT of the pancreas: effect of contrast-enhanced multiphasic imaging on enhancement of the pancreas, peripancreatic vasculature, and pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Radiology 2001;220(1):97-102. (Pubitemid 32577966)
18. Goshima S, Kanematsu M, Kondo H, et al. Pancreas: optimal scan delay for contrast-enhanced multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2006;241(1):167-174. (Pubitemid 44433347)
19. Mori S, Endo M, Nishizawa K, Murase K, Fujiwara H, Tanada S. Comparison of patient doses in 256-slice CT and 16-slice CT scanners. Br J Radiol 2006;79(937):56-61. (Pubitemid 43159317)
20. Bae KT. Peak contrast enhancement in CT and MR angiography: when does it occur and why? pharmacokinetic study in a porcine model. Radiology 2003;227(3):809-816. (Pubitemid 36583041)
21. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33(1):159-174. (Pubitemid 8054849)
22. Mathieu KB, McNitt-Gray MF, Zhang D, Kim HJ, Cody DD. Precision of dosimetry-related measurements obtained on current multidetector computed tomography scanners. Med Phys 2010;37(8):4102-4109.
23. Siebert E, Bohner G, Dewey M, et al. 320-slice CT neuroimaging: initial clinical experience and image quality evaluation. Br J Radiol 2009;82(979):561-570.