Diagnostic Imaging Performance of Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Compared with Conventional Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Uterine Cervical Cancer

S. Shibuki, T. Saida, K. Mori, Toshitaka Ishiguro, T. Amano, Miki Yoshida, Mariko Miyata, Toyomi Satoh, Takahito Nakajima
{"title":"Diagnostic Imaging Performance of Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Compared with Conventional Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Uterine Cervical Cancer","authors":"S. Shibuki, T. Saida, K. Mori, Toshitaka Ishiguro, T. Amano, Miki Yoshida, Mariko Miyata, Toyomi Satoh, Takahito Nakajima","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1787780","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Objective This article evaluates the ability of low-energy (40 keV) virtual monoenergetic images (VMIs) in the local diagnosis of cervical cancer compared with that of conventional computed tomography (C-CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), using clinicopathologic staging as a reference.\n Methods This prospective study included 33 patients with pathologically confirmed cervical cancer who underwent dual-energy CT and MRI between 2021 and 2022. The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the tumor-to-myometrium was compared between C-CT and VMI. Additionally, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for each local diagnostic parameter were compared between C-CT, VMI, and MRI. Interradiologist agreement was also assessed.\n Results The mean CNR was significantly higher on VMI (p = 0.002). No significant difference in AUC was found between C-CT and VMI for all local diagnostic parameters, and the specificity of VMI was often significantly less than that of MRI. For parametrial invasion, mean sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for C-CT, VMI, and MRI were 0.81, 0.99, 0.93; 0.64, 0.35, 0.79; and 0.73, 0.67, 0.86, respectively, and MRI had significantly higher specificity and AUC than that of VMI (p = 0.013 and 0.008, respectively). Interradiologist agreement was higher for VMI than C-CT and for MRI than VMI.\n Conclusion The CNR of VMI was significantly higher than C-CT and interradiologist agreement was better than with C-CT; however, the overall diagnostic performance of VMI did not significantly differ from C-CT and was inferior to MRI. VMI was characterized by low specificity, which should be understood and used for reading.","PeriodicalId":506648,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1787780","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective This article evaluates the ability of low-energy (40 keV) virtual monoenergetic images (VMIs) in the local diagnosis of cervical cancer compared with that of conventional computed tomography (C-CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), using clinicopathologic staging as a reference. Methods This prospective study included 33 patients with pathologically confirmed cervical cancer who underwent dual-energy CT and MRI between 2021 and 2022. The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the tumor-to-myometrium was compared between C-CT and VMI. Additionally, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for each local diagnostic parameter were compared between C-CT, VMI, and MRI. Interradiologist agreement was also assessed. Results The mean CNR was significantly higher on VMI (p = 0.002). No significant difference in AUC was found between C-CT and VMI for all local diagnostic parameters, and the specificity of VMI was often significantly less than that of MRI. For parametrial invasion, mean sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for C-CT, VMI, and MRI were 0.81, 0.99, 0.93; 0.64, 0.35, 0.79; and 0.73, 0.67, 0.86, respectively, and MRI had significantly higher specificity and AUC than that of VMI (p = 0.013 and 0.008, respectively). Interradiologist agreement was higher for VMI than C-CT and for MRI than VMI. Conclusion The CNR of VMI was significantly higher than C-CT and interradiologist agreement was better than with C-CT; however, the overall diagnostic performance of VMI did not significantly differ from C-CT and was inferior to MRI. VMI was characterized by low specificity, which should be understood and used for reading.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
双能量计算机断层扫描与传统计算机断层扫描和磁共振成像对子宫颈癌的诊断性能比较
目的 本文以临床病理分期为参考,评估低能量(40 keV)虚拟单能量图像(VMI)与传统计算机断层扫描(C-CT)和磁共振成像(MRI)相比,在宫颈癌局部诊断中的能力。方法 这项前瞻性研究纳入了 33 名病理确诊的宫颈癌患者,他们在 2021 年至 2022 年期间接受了双能 CT 和 MRI 检查。比较了 C-CT 和 VMI 的肿瘤-子宫对比度-噪声比(CNR)。此外,还比较了 C-CT、VMI 和 MRI 对每个局部诊断参数的敏感性、特异性和接收器操作特征曲线下面积 (AUC)。同时还评估了放射科医生之间的一致性。结果 VMI 的平均 CNR 明显更高(p = 0.002)。在所有局部诊断参数上,C-CT 和 VMI 的 AUC 均无明显差异,而 VMI 的特异性往往明显低于 MRI。对于宫旁侵犯,C-CT、VMI 和 MRI 的平均敏感性、特异性和 AUC 分别为 0.81、0.99、0.93;0.64、0.35、0.79;0.73、0.67、0.86,MRI 的特异性和 AUC 明显高于 VMI(P = 0.013 和 0.008)。VMI 比 C-CT 和 MRI 的医师间一致性更高。结论 VMI 的 CNR 明显高于 C-CT,放射科医生之间的一致性也优于 C-CT;但是,VMI 的总体诊断性能与 C-CT 没有明显差异,不如 MRI。VMI 的特点是特异性低,这一点应得到理解并用于阅读。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Injection of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Treatment of Sports-Related Meniscal Injuries Never Regret Trying Image-Guided Sclerotherapy in Orbital Low-Flow Malformation Diagnostic Imaging Performance of Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Compared with Conventional Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Uterine Cervical Cancer Spontaneous Chest Wall Hernias: Intercostal Lung Hernia and Inverted Intercostal Hernia WhatsApp and Its Role in Teleradiology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1