Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제7권4호
  • /
  • Pages.275-280
  • /
  • 2006
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지

Effect of Thin Overlapping Reconstruction on the Attenuation of Small $({\leq}3cm)$ Renal Cysts in the Nephrographic Phase of MDCT: a Phantom Study

  • Kim, Sun-Ho (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Center Clinical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Seung-Hyup (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Center Clinical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital)
  • 발행 : 2006.12.31
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: To evaluate the effect of thin overlapping reconstruction on the attenuation of small $({\leq}3cm)$ renal cysts in the nephrographic phase of multidetector CT (MDCT). Materials and Methods: We scanned a phantom kidney containing spheres of various sizes (10,20, and 30 mm) using both 4- and 16-channel MDCT scanners, and reconstructed images with various slice thickness (T, mm) and intervals (I, mm). The attenuation increase (AI) was measured for each sphere in 240-HU diluted solution of contrast material and compared with the attenuation in 35-HU solution. Results: On the 4-channel MDCT, thin overlapping reconstruction (T/I =3/1, compared with 5/5) lowered the AI as much as 17 HU in the 10 mm-sphere and 6 HU in the 20mm-sphere (p<0.05). Thin slicing alone was also effective; however overlapping alone was not. On the 16-channel MDCT, AI in the 10 mm-sphere was significantly lower than on the 4-channel MDCT with T/I = 5/5 (p<0.05), however thinner slicing or overlapping did not affect the attenuation significantly in all of the spheres. Conclusion: The effect of thin overlapping reconstruction on minimizing falsely elevated attenuation in the nephrographic phase was significant only in cysts ${\leq}20$ mm on the 4-channel MDCT.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bosniak MA. The current radiological approach to renal cysts. Radiology 1986;158:1-10 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.158.1.3510019
  2. McClennan BL, Stanley RJ, Melson GL, Levitt RG, Sagel SS. CT of the renal cyst: is cyst aspiration necessary? AJR Am J Roentgenol 1979;133:671-675 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.133.4.671
  3. Sagel SS, Stanley RJ, Levitt RG, Geisse G. Computed tomography of the kidney. Radiology 1977;124:359-370 https://doi.org/10.1148/124.2.359
  4. Bosniak MA, Rofsky NM. Problems in the detection and characterization of small renal masses. Radiology 1996;198:638-641 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.198.3.8628846
  5. Siegel CL, Fisher AJ, Bennett HF. Interobserver variability in determining enhancement of renal masses on helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;172:1207-1212 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.172.5.10227490
  6. Maki DD, Birnbaum BA, Chakraborty DP, Jacobs JE, Carvalho BM, Herman GT. Renal cyst pseudoenhancement: beamhardening effects on CT numbers. Radiology 1999;213:468-472 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.213.2.r99nv33468
  7. Coulam CH, Sheafor DH, Leder RA, Paulson EK, DeLong DM, Nelson RC. Evaluation of pseudoenhancement of renal cysts during contrast-enhanced CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:493-498 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.174.2.1740493
  8. Birnbaum BA, Jacobs JE, Langlotz CP, Ramchandani P. Assessment of a bolus tracking technique in helical renal CT to optimize nephrographic phase imaging. Radiology 1999;211:87- 94 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.211.1.r99ap4187
  9. Gokan T, Ohgiya Y, Munechika H, Nobusawa H, Hirose M. Renal cyst pseudoenhancement with beam hardening effect on CT attenuation. Radiat Med 2002;20:187-190
  10. Birnbaum BA, Maki DD, Chakraborty DP, Jacobs JE, Babb JS. Renal cyst pseudoenhancement: evaluation with an anthropomorphic body CT phantom. Radiology 2002;225:83-90 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2251010930
  11. Bae KT, Heiken JP, Siegel CL, Bennett HF. Renal cysts: is attenuation artifactually increased on contrast-enhanced CT images? Radiology 2000;216:792-796 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.216.3.r00se14792
  12. Heneghan JP, Spielmann AL, Sheafor DH, Kliewer MA, DeLong DM, Nelson RC. Pseudoenhancement of simple renal cysts: a comparison of single and multidetector helical CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2002;26:90-94 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-200201000-00013
  13. Abdulla C, Kalra MK, Saini S, Maher MM, Ahmad A, Halpern E, et al. Pseudoenhancement of simulated renal cysts in a phantom using different multidetector CT scanners. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:1473-1476 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.179.6.1791473
  14. Jinzaki M, McTavish JD, Zou KH, Judy PF, Silverman SG. Evaluation of small (3 cm) renal masses with MDCT: benefits of thin overlapping reconstructions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:223-228 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.183.1.1830223
  15. Chung EP, Herts BR, Linnell G, Novick AC, Obuchowski N, Coll DM, et al. Analysis of changes in attenuation of proven renal cysts on different scanning phases of triphasic MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;182:405-410 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.182.2.1820405
  16. Kalra MK, Maher MM, D'Souza R, Saini S. Multidetector computed tomography technology: current status and emerging developments. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2004;28:S2-S6 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.rct.0000120857.80935.bd