Matti Haveri
2010-03-19 21:59:32 UTC
Hi,
We are getting a new CT and I'm curious what is the current state of
dual energy CT in practice.
How often do you enable it when scanning routine patients?
How much overhead does it introduce in your workflow? Does it make
interpreting cases slower or faster?
What are the real benefits:
Does it really help you to decide whether a contrast-only adrenal gland
lesion or a contrast-only hyperdense renal or liver lesion is a benign
hemorrhagic cyst or a potentially malignant lesion? Does it help you
when evaluating the nonenhancement vs. enhancement of very small
hypodense liver lesions (nonenhancing cyst vs. a potentially malign
enhancing lesion)?
AFAIK vendors like Siemens report dual energy "water images'" density in
HU and vendors like GE in g/m2. There are HU values that indicate a
benign nature of non-contrast adrenal gland lesions but are there
universally accepted benign vs. potentially malign g/m2 values for
adrenal lesions yet?
Does dual energy really remove bone from CT angios better and more
easily than bone removal applications?
Is the extra cost of dual energy justified when evaluating kidney stones
and other calcifications?
Is there much overhead in archiving dual energy data sets -- can you
easily omit unnecessary dual energy info from the archived data? AFAIK
dual energy data can be as much as 5x larger than conventional CT data.
Thanks for any info you can provide,
Matti Haveri
***@gmail.com
Seinäjoki Central Hospital
Department of Diagnostic Radiology
We are getting a new CT and I'm curious what is the current state of
dual energy CT in practice.
How often do you enable it when scanning routine patients?
How much overhead does it introduce in your workflow? Does it make
interpreting cases slower or faster?
What are the real benefits:
Does it really help you to decide whether a contrast-only adrenal gland
lesion or a contrast-only hyperdense renal or liver lesion is a benign
hemorrhagic cyst or a potentially malignant lesion? Does it help you
when evaluating the nonenhancement vs. enhancement of very small
hypodense liver lesions (nonenhancing cyst vs. a potentially malign
enhancing lesion)?
AFAIK vendors like Siemens report dual energy "water images'" density in
HU and vendors like GE in g/m2. There are HU values that indicate a
benign nature of non-contrast adrenal gland lesions but are there
universally accepted benign vs. potentially malign g/m2 values for
adrenal lesions yet?
Does dual energy really remove bone from CT angios better and more
easily than bone removal applications?
Is the extra cost of dual energy justified when evaluating kidney stones
and other calcifications?
Is there much overhead in archiving dual energy data sets -- can you
easily omit unnecessary dual energy info from the archived data? AFAIK
dual energy data can be as much as 5x larger than conventional CT data.
Thanks for any info you can provide,
Matti Haveri
***@gmail.com
Seinäjoki Central Hospital
Department of Diagnostic Radiology