| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Medical Physics |
1 From GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wis. From the 1998 RSNA scientific assembly. Received March 11, 1999; revision requested May 5; final revision received September 20; accepted October 4. Address reprint requests to H.H., 20720 W Watertown Rd, Suite 201, Waukesha, WI 53186 (e-mail: hui.hu@imagingtechinc.com).
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 TOP Abstract IntroductionMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXReferences |
|---|
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The section-sensitivity profile and image noise of a four multidetector-row scanner were measured with phantom scans and compared with predictions from theoretic models. Nominal section thickness ranged from 1.25 to 10.00 mm, beam collimation from 1.25 to 5.00 mm, and table speed from 3.75 to 30.00 mm per rotation. Image artifacts with four and single multidetector-row helical CT were compared in both a phantom study and a subjective rating analysis of clinical images.
RESULTS: Compared with single multidetector-row helical CT, the volume coverage speed of four multidetector-row helical CT (range, 3.75–30.00 mm per rotation) is at least twice as fast as that with single multidetector-row helical CT (1.0–10.0 mm per rotation) with fully comparable image quality or, in many cases, three times as fast with diagnostically comparable image quality.
CONCLUSION: Compared with single multidetector-row helical CT, four multidetector-row helical CT provides a two- to threefold improvement in volume coverage speed with comparable diagnostic image quality.
Index terms: Computed tomography (CT), comparative studies • Computed tomography (CT), helical, **, 121152 • Computed tomography (CT), image processing • Computed tomography (CT), image quality
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXReferences |
|---|
Helical CT, introduced a decade ago (1,2), involves simultaneous transport of a patient at a constant speed through the gantry while helical CT data are continuously acquired over multiple gantry rotations. As a major improvement in the volume coverage speed, helical CT has become the method of choice for many routine and new clinical studies (3–9). It provides satisfactory image quality with a moderate table transport distance per rotation (eg, one to two times the section thickness to be imaged). However, further increase in the table transport speed (ie, the volume coverage speed) generally results in clinically unacceptable images (10). On the other hand, many time-critical applications, such as pulmonary embolism studies (8,9), multiphase dynamic organ studies (5–7), CT angiography (3), or neurologic and body trauma studies call for further improvement in the volume coverage speed of helical CT scanners.
The volume coverage speed may be substantially improved by using a combination of helical CT with so-called multidetector-row CT. " Multidetector-row CT scanner" refers to a special CT system equipped with a multiple-row detector array (Fig 1b) as opposed to the commonly used single-row detector array (Fig 1a). A two multidetector-row helical CT scanner (Twin; Elscint, Haifa, Israel) was introduced several years ago, and four multidetector-row helical CT scanners have recently been introduced by several CT manufacturers.
|
|
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXReferences |
|---|
Helical pitch.—The pitch at single multidetector-row helical CT is defined as the table transport distance per rotation divided by the x-ray beam collimation. For multidetector-row helical CT, this definition can be extended to the table transport distance per rotation divided by the detector-row beam collimation. With this extended definition, the pitch of multidetector-row helical CT is consistent with the convention of single multidetector-row helical CT in that the pitch relates the volume coverage speed to the thinnest sections that can be generated. We used the extended definition in this study.
Preferred helical pitches.—With multidetector-row helical CT, some pitches are preferred (11,12). At certain pitches, multiple detector rows work efficiently as one unit, and the data from different detector rows form a desirable z-sampling pattern. Selection of the pitches for multidetector-row helical CT is also affected by other conventional factors, such as the volume coverage speed (which disfavors very low pitch), section-sensitivity profile (SSP), and image artifact rating (which disfavors very high pitch). The four multidetector-row helical CT scanner used in this study supports two pitches: 3:1 and 6:1 (11). The combination of two pitches and four detector-row beam collimations results in eight scanning modes (Table 1).
|
Multidetector-row helical interpolation algorithm.—From a multidetector-row helical data set, the multidetector-row helical interpolation algorithm synthesizes a complete set of projection data at each prescribed section location. The measurements closest to the section location, preferably from opposite sides, are used in the interpolation, regardless of which detector row produced them. The synthesized data set is then processed by using the standard reconstruction algorithm for conventional CT. Thus, reconstruction of a multidetector-row helical CT image normally requires the projection data from all detector rows.
z-Filtering reconstruction.—The four multidetector-row helical CT scanner makes use of the so-called z-filtering reconstruction algorithm, which allows multiple image sets with different section thicknesses to be reconstructed from a single helical CT data set by means of selection of appropriate z kernels. The concept of varying the frequency response of the z axis by means of z kernels (11–13) is similar to that of varying the in-plane frequency response by means of the image reconstruction kernel, such as standard or lung kernels. The z-filtering reconstruction introduces flexibility in CT operation.
Operation Matrix
With the four multidetector-row scanner used in this study, the reconstructed images were grouped into six section thicknesses (hereafter, "nominal section thickness") of 1.25, 2.5, 3.75, 5.0, 7.5, and 10.0 mm. Table 1 is an operation matrix that shows the combinations of six nominal section thicknesses with eight scanning modes. Each cell in Table 1 represents a potential combination of scanning and reconstruction modes, which is referred to as a potential imaging (or operation) mode.
With the z-filtering reconstruction, multiple section thicknesses can be obtained with a given scanning mode (ie, with a fixed detector-row beam collimation and table speed). For example, three section thicknesses (ie, 2.5, 3.75, 5.0 mm) can be generated, by means of appropriate z-kernel selection, from a single data acquisition with pitch of 3:1 and table speed of 7.5 mm per rotation. In addition, several scanning modes can generate images with a prescribed section thickness. For example, six scanning modes can generate an image with nominal section thickness of 5.0 mm (Table 1).
Imaging Performance Study
Findings with four multidetector-row helical CT in the various helical CT modes were benchmarked to those with single multidetector-row helical CT with corresponding section thickness. Image quality was evaluated on the basis of SSP, image noise, and artifact ratings as determined with theoretic models, phantom experiments, and subjective rating analysis of clinical images. The phantom experiments and clinical studies were conducted with the same four multidetector-row scanner and a single multidetector-row helical CT scanner (HiSpeed CT/i; GE Medical Systems). The scanning parameters for phantom experiments were fixed to 120 kVp, 200 mA, and gantry rotational speed of 1 second with both scanners.
Experimental and theoretic studies of SSP and noise.—The SSP was measured by scanning a thin-disk phantom (14). The images of the phantom were reconstructed with 0.1-mm increment in the image z position. The SSP was obtained by plotting the mean CT number measured over the centered thin disk as a function of image z location. The SSP was characterized by its full width at half maximum (FWHM) and full width at 10th maximum.
Image noise was measured with a 20-cm-diameter water phantom and was derived by calculating the SD of CT numbers of the centered water phantom. To obtain the noise ratio, image noise with helical CT was normalized to that with conventional CT performed with the same nominal section thickness on the same scanner.
As for single multidetector-row helical CT (14–19), theoretic models of SSP and image noise were developed for multidetector-row helical CT (11) (Appendix). On the basis of these models, the SSP and image noise ratio were derived for the various helical CT modes and were compared with the corresponding experimental measurements.
Experimental study of image artifacts.—Image artifacts were assessed by using a morphologic body phantom that contained human cadaveric shoulder and spinal bones. This phantom is particularly sensitive to helical CT artifacts as these bones cause rapid attenuation changes in the z direction. The artifact rating was derived subjectively by consensus of three observers, who were not blinded to the acquisition method. For example, if the artifacts with the four multidetector-row scanning mode were deemed comparable to those with single multidetector-row helical CT with 1:1-pitch and with comparable section thickness, the four multidetector-row artifacts were rated as "~1:1" (ie, equivalent to the single multidetector-row pitch of 1:1). When the section thickness (such as 2.5 mm) was not available on the single multidetector-row scanner or when the four multidetector-row artifact rating fell between those with single multidetector-row helical CT, the four multidetector-row artifact rating was derived by means of interpolation from the single multidetector-row ratings.
Subjective rating analysis of clinical images.—A preliminary evaluation of image quality and speed performance was conducted with the images of 13 patients (six men and seven women; age range, 23–75 years; mean age, 52 years). For each patient, two interval studies of the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis were available, one with single multidetector-row helical CT and the other with four multidetector-row helical CT. These 13 patients were from a larger group of patients who had undergone interval (1–2 months) oncologic survey studies for clinical staging of disease or posttreatment surveillance. The type of scanner used was determined on the basis of scanner availability at the time of their examination.
Single multidetector-row helical CT was performed with 5.0-mm beam collimation, table speed of 7.5 mm per rotation, and 5.0-mm reconstruction interval. Four multidetector-row helical CT was performed with 5.0-mm section thickness, table speed of 22.5 mm per rotation (ie, 3.75-mm detector-row beam collimation and 6:1 pitch), and 5.0-mm reconstruction interval. Imaging parameters with both the single and four multidetector-row helical CT scanners were determined on the basis of a preset clinical imaging protocol for each system. On images to be rated, comparable noise levels were ensured by using a milliampere-second setting for the second scan that was predicted to produce noise similar to that on the first scan.
Images at comparable anatomic levels from the two studies were displayed simultaneously on a two-screen workstation in a cine format. Oberservers were three board-certified radiologists experienced in reading body helical CT images. They were blinded to the acquisition method. The single and four multidetector-row images were displayed on either the left or right monitor, unknown to the observers. The observers reviewed the images simultaneously but independently.
Observers rated streak artifact across the midline soft-tissue anatomy on images obtained at the level of the upper thorax, upper abdomen, and midpelvis. Rib shadowing and streak artifacts between ribs were assessed on upper abdominal images. The artifact rating was assigned on a four-point scale: 0, none; 1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, severe. Diagnostic image quality was rated on a three-point scale: 1, diagnostic, less than standard image quality; 2, diagnostic and standard image quality; 3, optimal. The upper thorax was evaluated with mediastinal (level, 50 HU; width, 450 HU) and lung (level, -600 HU; width, 2,000 HU) window settings. The upper abdomen was evaluated with abdominal window settings (level, 50 HU; width, 350 HU). The midpelvis was evaluated with abdominal (level, 50 HU; width, 350 HU) and bone (level, 250 HU; width, 1,500 HU) window settings. Image quality evaluation for the upper thorax combined the assessment with mediastinal and lung window settings and for the midpelvis combined the assessment with abdominal and bone window settings.
Two viewing sessions separated by a 3-month interval included the same images and observers. Differences in artifact and image quality ratings were analyzed by means of a standard t test. A P value less than .05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference. Interobserver and intraobserver variability was assessed with the 
statistic.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXReferences |
|---|
|
|
|
= 0.61) and moderate at the midpelvis ( = 0.40). Intraobserver correlation was moderate at all three anatomic levels ( = 0.25), with complete agreement in 54% (62 of 114) of instances. Image quality for the four multidetector-row studies with increased artifacts at the shoulder and midpelvis was rated as diagnostically adequate and equivalent to that for the single multidetector-row studies. The increased streak artifact affected clinically unimportant soft-tissue anatomy (supraclavicular fossa at the shoulders, external pelvic musculature at the hips) or was limited to one section at the midpelvis.
|
|
|
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXReferences |
|---|
Owing to the use of a multirow detector, multidetector-row helical CT can provide image quality that is comparable to or better (in terms of SSP and image artifacts) than that at single multidetector-row helical CT and with a faster table speed. Thus, the primary advantage of multidetector-row helical CT is a substantial improvement in volume coverage speed.
With 5.00-mm nominal section thickness (Tables 2–4, Fig 2), the SSP and image artifact ratings were comparable with (a) four multidetector-row helical CT at table speed of 11.25 mm per rotation and 3:1 pitch versus single multidetector-row helical CT at table speed of 5.0 mm per rotation, 5.0-mm section thickness, and 1:1 pitch, and (b) four multidetector-row helical CT at table speed of 15.0 mm per rotation and 3:1 or 6:1 pitch versus single multidetector-row helical CT at table speed of 7.5 mm per rotation, 5.0-mm section thickness, and 1.5:1.0 pitch. Volume coverage speed with four multidetector-row helical CT was at least twice that at single multidetector-row helical CT, and image quality (in terms of SSP and image artifacts) was comparable.
Findings in our clinical studies indicate that diagnostically comparable image quality can be achieved with approximately three times the volume coverage speed with four multidetector-row helical CT. On the basis of subjective ratings, image quality was comparable between four multidetector-row helical CT at table speed of 22.5 mm per rotation and 5.0-mm section thickness versus single multidetector-row helical CT at table speed of 7.5 mm per rotation and 5.0-mm section thickness. The four multidetector-row helical CT scans had more artifacts in some cases (Table 4) but were obtained three times faster and had a sharper SSP (FWHM, 5.0 vs 5.4 mm in Table 2). Image quality was also comparable between four multidetector-row helical CT at table speed of 15.0 mm per rotation and 3.2-mm (nominal, 2.5-mm) section thickness (Fig 4) versus single multidetector-row helical CT at table speed of 4.5 mm per rotation with 3.0-mm section thickness and 1.5:1.0 pitch, although the four multidetector-row helical CT scans were obtained about three times faster.
Findings in this study indicate that compared with single multidetector-row helical CT, the volume coverage speed of four multidetector-row helical CT can be at least twice as fast with fully comparable image quality or, in many cases, three times as fast with diagnostically comparable image quality.
Image quality (in terms of SSP and image artifacts) at helical CT deteriorates noticeably when the table transport speed is faster than 1.5–2.0 times the detector-row beam collimation per rotation (10). We found that the same is true for four multidetector-row helical CT even though the deterioration occurs at two- to threefold faster table speeds. At the fastest volume coverage speeds in our study with 1.25-, 2.5-, and 5.0-mm nominal section thicknesses, the FWHM was substantially larger than the corresponding nominal section thickness. For example, the FWHM with 5.0-mm nominal section thickness with table speed of 30.0 mm per rotation was 6.4 mm. This is because FWHM with 6:1 pitch (with linear interpolation) at four multidetector-row helical CT, which is similar to 2:1 pitch at single multidetector-row helical CT, cannot be thinner than 1.27 times the detector-row beam collimation (11). For the same reason, the mode of reconstructing 3.75-mm nominal section thickness at table speed of 22.5 mm per rotation is not provided. This is because the thinnest FWHM achievable from this scan is 4.76 mm (ie, 1.27 times its detector-row collimation of 3.75 mm), which should be categorized as the nominal section thickness of 5.0 mm rather than 3.75 mm, and which is redundant with the actual 5.0-mm imaging mode from the same scan.
The two- to threefold improvement in volume coverage speed provided with four multidetector-row helical CT could translate into (a) substantial improvement in volume coverage or z-axis resolution in routine CT studies, (b) better use of injected contrast materials, and (c) better separation of arterial and venous phases in multiphase data acquisitions. This improvement could allow routine scanning of a large region in the same contrast enhancement phase and with high spatial resolution in the z direction.
Results in this study can be applied independent of the implementation details of specific CT manufacturers. We used the same gantry rotational speed with both four and single multidetector-row helical CT. An increase in the gantry rotational speed would result in a proportional improvement in volume coverage speed. Similarly, to ensure the noise characteristics were generally independent of the imaging geometries and x-ray use efficiencies of specific scanners, we evaluated the noise ratios between helical and conventional CT with the same scanner with use of the same nominal section thickness. It was beyond the scope of this study to directly compare the image noise and milliampere-second settings between four and single multidetector-row helical CT, because these comparisons are affected by the imaging geometry and x-ray use efficiency of each particular scanner.
The noise ratio with four multidetector-row helical CT ranged from 0.82 to 0.92 for 3:1 pitch and 1.02 to 1.15 for 6:1 pitch (Table 3). With single multidetector-row helical CT, however, the noise ratio with the 180° linear interpolation algorithm was fixed to 1.15, regardless of pitch (14). Reduced noise ratios with four multide-tector-row helical CT were due to (a) the scan overlap with 3:1 pitch or (b) the z-filtering reconstruction, which allowed the z filtration to be fine-tuned to provide substantial noise reduction at the cost of a slight degradation in z resolution.
Four multidetector-row helical CT also provided the convenience of generating images from a single helical CT data acquisition that had multiple section thicknesses optimized for different applications (Table 3, Fig 4). Also, multiple scanning modes could be used to generate a prescribed section thickness (Tables 1, 3) with trade-offs in the volume coverage speed, image artifacts, SSP, noise, and section thickness at retrospective reconstruction.
As with single multidetector-row helical CT, four multidetector-row helical CT eliminates the scanning delay inherent in conventional CT and therefore has a faster volume coverage speed. In addition, four multidetector-row helical CT can provide images at any location within the scanning range with arbitrarily small section z spacing.
|
APPENDIX |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXReferences |
|---|
The noise (
) ratio of helical (H) to conventional (C) CT, is given as follows (11):
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Abbreviations: FWHM = full width at half maximum SSP = section-sensitivity profile
Author contributions: Guarantors of integrity of entire study, H.H., W.D.F.; study concepts, all authors; study design, H.H., W.D.F., H.D.H.; definition of intellectual content, all authors; literature research, H.H., W.D.F., H.D.H.; clinical studies, W.D.F., H.D.H.; experimental studies, H.H., H.D.H.; data acquisition and analysis, H.H., H.D.H., W.D.F.; statistical analysis, W.D.F.; manuscript preparation, H.H., W.D.F., H.D.H.; manuscript editing, all authors; manuscript review, H.H., W.D.F.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXReferences |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  Y. Funama, K. Awai, K. Taguchi, M. Hatemura, Y. Yanaga, M. Shimamura, and Y. Yamashita Cone-Beam Technique for 64-MDCT of Lung: Image Quality Comparison with Stepwise (Step-and-Shoot) Technique Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2009; 192(1): 273 - 278. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K Hashimoto, S Kawashima, S Kameoka, Y Akiyama, T Honjoya, K Ejima, and K Sawada Comparison of image validity between cone beam computed tomography for dental use and multidetector row helical computed tomography Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., December 1, 2007; 36(8): 465 - 471. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Memarsadeghi, C. Schaefer-Prokop, M. Prokop, T. H. Helbich, C. C. Seitz, I. M. Noebauer-Huhmann, and G. Heinz-Peer Unenhanced MDCT in Patients with Suspected Urinary Stone Disease: Do Coronal Reformations Improve Diagnostic Performance? Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2007; 189(2): W60 - W64. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B Oguz, M Haliloglu, and M Karcaaltincaba Paediatric multidetector CT angiography: spectrum of congenital thoracic vascular anomalies Br. J. Radiol., May 1, 2007; 80(953): 376 - 383. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Matsumoto, N. Kodama, Y. Endo, J. Sakuma, Ky. Suzuki, T. Sasaki, K. Murakami, Ke. Suzuki, T. Katakura, and F. Shishido Dynamic 3D-CT Angiography AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., February 1, 2007; 28(2): 299 - 304. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. J. Jeong, C. A. Yi, and K. S. Lee Solitary Pulmonary Nodules: Detection, Characterization, and Guidance for Further Diagnostic Workup and Treatment Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2007; 188(1): 57 - 68. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Schueller-Weidekamm, C. M. Schaefer-Prokop, M. Weber, C. J. Herold, and M. Prokop CT Angiography of Pulmonary Arteries to Detect Pulmonary Embolism: Improvement of Vascular Enhancement with Low Kilovoltage Settings Radiology, December 1, 2006; 241(3): 899 - 907. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Goshima, M. Kanematsu, H. Kondo, R. Yokoyama, T. Miyoshi, H. Kato, Y. Tsuge, Y. Shiratori, H. Hoshi, M. Onozuka, et al. Pancreas: Optimal Scan Delay for Contrast-enhanced Multi-Detector Row CT Radiology, October 1, 2006; 241(1): 167 - 174. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Memarsadeghi, M. J. Breitenseher, C. Schaefer-Prokop, M. Weber, S. Aldrian, C. Gabler, and M. Prokop Occult Scaphoid Fractures: Comparison of Multidetector CT and MR Imaging--Initial Experience Radiology, July 1, 2006; 240(1): 169 - 176. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H Furukawa, H Ikuma, A Seki, K Yokoe, S Yuen, T Aramaki, and S Yamagushi Positron emission tomography scanning is not superior to whole body multidetector helical computed tomography in the preoperative staging of colorectal cancer Gut, July 1, 2006; 55(7): 1007 - 1011. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T Flohr and B Ohnesorge Developments in CT Imaging, June 1, 2006; 18(2): 45 - 61. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A S Lowe and C L Kay Recent developments in CT: a review of the clinical applications and advantages of multidetector computed tomography Imaging, June 1, 2006; 18(2): 62 - 67. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Rieger, A. Mallouhi, T. Tauscher, M. Lutz, and W. R. Jaschke Traumatic Arterial Injuries of the Extremities: Initial Evaluation with MDCT Angiography. Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2006; 186(3): 656 - 664. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. Asayama, K. Yoshimitsu, H. Aibe, A. Nishie, D. Kakihira, H. Irie, T. Tajima, K. Matake, T. Nakayama, Y. Ohishi, et al. MDCT of the Gonadal Veins in Females with Large Pelvic Masses: Value in Differentiating Ovarian Versus Uterine Origin Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2006; 186(2): 440 - 448. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. S. Sudakoff, D. P. Dunn, R. S. Hellman, M. A. Laguna, C. R. Wilson, R. W. Prost, D. C. Eastwood, and H. J. Lim Opacification of the Genitourinary Collecting System During MDCT Urography with Enhanced CT Digital Radiography: Nonsaline Versus Saline Bolus Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2006; 186(1): 122 - 129. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. K. Kim, C. S. Kim, G. H. Chung, Y.-M. Han, S. Y. Lee, S. B. Chon, and J. M. Lee Comparison of Gadobenate Dimeglumine-Enhanced Dynamic MRI and 16-MDCT for the Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2006; 186(1): 149 - 157. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. A. Jaffe, R. C. Nelson, G. A. Johnson, E. R. Lee, T. T. Yoshizumi, C. R. Lowry, A. B. Bullard, D. M. DeLong, and E. K. Paulson Optimization of Multiplanar Reformations from Isotropic Data Sets Acquired with 16-Detector Row Helical CT Scanner Radiology, January 1, 2006; 238(1): 292 - 299. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. K. Kim, H. S. Kwak, C. S. Kim, G. H. Chung, Y. M. Han, and J. M. Lee Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Chronic Liver Disease: Comparison of SPIO-enhanced MR Imaging and 16-Detector Row CT Radiology, December 21, 2005; (2005) 2381042193. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Kohl The Evolution and State-of-the-Art Principles of Multislice Computed Tomography Proceedings of the ATS, December 1, 2005; 2(6): 470 - 476. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Schertler, S. Wildermuth, H. Alkadhi, M. Kruppa, B. Marincek, and T. Boehm Sixteen-Detector Row CT Angiography for Lower-Leg Arterial Occlusive Disease: Analysis of Section Width Radiology, November 1, 2005; 237(2): 649 - 656. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
U. Studler, T. Gluecker, G. Bongartz, J. Roth, and W. Steinbrich Image Quality from High-Resolution CT of the Lung: Comparison of Axial Scans and of Sections Reconstructed from Volumetric Data Acquired Using MDCT Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2005; 185(3): 602 - 607. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. C. Dalrymple, S. R. Prasad, M. W. Freckleton, and K. N. Chintapalli Informatics in Radiology (infoRAD): Introduction to the Language of Three-dimensional Imaging with Multidetector CT RadioGraphics, September 1, 2005; 25(5): 1409 - 1428. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. G. Flohr, S. Schaller, K. Stierstorfer, H. Bruder, B. M. Ohnesorge, and U. J. Schoepf Multi-Detector Row CT Systems and Image-Reconstruction Techniques Radiology, June 1, 2005; 235(3): 756 - 773. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. J. Golding Multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT): the dose challenge of the new revolution Radiat Prot Dosimetry, May 17, 2005; 114(1-3): 303 - 307. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. Yagyu, K. Awai, M. Inoue, R. Watai, T. Sano, H. Hasegawa, and Y. Nishimura MDCT of Hypervascular Hepatocellular Carcinomas: A Prospective Study Using Contrast Materials with Different Iodine Concentrations Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2005; 184(5): 1535 - 1540. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Memarsadeghi, G. Heinz-Peer, T. H. Helbich, C. Schaefer-Prokop, G. Kramer, M. Scharitzer, and M. Prokop Unenhanced Multi-Detector Row CT in Patients Suspected of Having Urinary Stone Disease: Effect of Section Width on Diagnosis Radiology, May 1, 2005; 235(2): 530 - 536. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. H. Baroni, D. Feller-Kopman, M. Nishino, H. Hatabu, S. H. Loring, A. Ernst, and P. M. Boiselle Tracheobronchomalacia: Comparison between End-expiratory and Dynamic Expiratory CT for Evaluation of Central Airway Collapse Radiology, May 1, 2005; 235(2): 635 - 641. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. D. Prologo, R. C. Gilkeson, M. Diaz, and M. Cummings The Effect of Single-Detector CT Versus MDCT on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Suspected Acute Pulmonary Embolism and Negative Results on CT Pulmonary Angiography Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2005; 184(4): 1231 - 1235. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Matsumoto, N. Kodama, J. Sakuma, S. Sato, M. Oinuma, Y. Konno, K. Suzuki, T. Sasaki, K. Suzuki, T. Katakura, et al. 3D-CT Arteriography and 3D-CT Venography: The Separate Demonstration of Arterial-Phase and Venous-Phase on 3D-CT Angiography in a Single Procedure AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., March 1, 2005; 26(3): 635 - 641. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. DeWitt, B. Devereaux, M. Chriswell, K. McGreevy, T. Howard, T. F. Imperiale, D. Ciaccia, K. A. Lane, D. Maglinte, K. Kopecky, et al. Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasonography and Multidetector Computed Tomography for Detecting and Staging Pancreatic Cancer Ann Intern Med, November 16, 2004; 141(10): 753 - 763. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. K. Paulson, T. A. Jaffe, J. Thomas, J. P. Harris, and R. C. Nelson MDCT of Patients with Acute Abdominal Pain: A New Perspective Using Coronal Reformations from Submillimeter Isotropic Voxels Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2004; 183(4): 899 - 906. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. A Yi, K. S. Lee, E. A Kim, J. Han, H. Kim, O J. Kwon, Y. J. Jeong, and S. Kim Solitary Pulmonary Nodules: Dynamic Enhanced Multi-Detector Row CT Study and Comparison with Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and Microvessel Density Radiology, October 1, 2004; 233(1): 191 - 199. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Schoenhagen, S. S. Halliburton, A. E. Stillman, S. A. Kuzmiak, S. E. Nissen, E. M. Tuzcu, and R. D. White Noninvasive Imaging of Coronary Arteries: Current and Future Role of Multi-Detector Row CT Radiology, July 1, 2004; 232(1): 7 - 17. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
U. J. Schoepf, C. R. Becker, B. M. Ohnesorge, and E. K. Yucel CT of Coronary Artery Disease Radiology, July 1, 2004; 232(1): 18 - 37. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Jinzaki, J. D. McTavish, K. H. Zou, P. F. Judy, and S. G. Silverman Evaluation of Small (<= 3 cm) Renal Masses with MDCT: Benefits of Thin Overlapping Reconstructions Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2004; 183(1): 223 - 228. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Cademartiri, R. H. J. M. Raaijmakers, J. W. Kuiper, L. C. van Dijk, P. M. T. Pattynama, and G. P. Krestin Multi-Detector Row CT Angiography in Patients with Abdominal Angina RadioGraphics, July 1, 2004; 24(4): 969 - 984. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Romer, M. Chung, A. Chan, D. W. Townsend, F. Torok, B. McCook, M. P. Federle, and N. Avril Single-Detector Helical CT in PET-CT: Assessment of Image Quality Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2004; 182(6): 1571 - 1577. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 U. J. Schoepf, S. Z. Goldhaber, and P. Costello Spiral Computed Tomography for Acute Pulmonary Embolism Circulation, May 11, 2004; 109(18): 2160 - 2167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. M. Kelly, I. Hasegawa, R. Borders, H. Hatabu, and P. M. Boiselle High-Resolution CT Using MDCT: Comparison of Degree of Motion Artifact Between Volumetric and Axial Methods Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2004; 182(3): 757 - 759. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Sheth and E. K. Fishman Multi-Detector Row CT of the Kidneys and Urinary Tract: Techniques and Applications in the Diagnosis of Benign Diseases RadioGraphics, March 1, 2004; 24(2): e20 - e20. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Teshima, N. Hayashida, S. Fukunaga, E. Tayama, T. Kawara, S. Aoyagi, and M. Uchida Usefulness of a multidetector-row computed tomography scanner for detecting pannus formation Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2004; 77(2): 523 - 526. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Vargas, M. Nino-Murcia, W. Trueblood, and R. B. Jeffrey Jr. MDCT in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Prediction of Vascular Invasion and Resectability Using a Multiphasic Technique with Curved Planar Reformations Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2004; 182(2): 419 - 425. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
U. J. Schoepf and P. Costello CT Angiography for Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism: State of the Art Radiology, February 1, 2004; 230(2): 329 - 337. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Y. El-Khoury, D. L. Bennett, and G. J. Ondr Multidetector-Row Computed Tomography J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg., January 1, 2004; 12(1): 1 - 5. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Siegel Multiplanar and Three-dimensional Multi-Detector Row CT of Thoracic Vessels and Airways in the Pediatric Population Radiology, December 1, 2003; 229(3): 641 - 650. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Inoue, T. Sano, R. Watai, R. Ashikaga, K. Ueda, M. Watatani, and Y. Nishimura Dynamic Multidetector CT of Breast Tumors: Diagnostic Features and Comparison with Conventional Techniques Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2003; 181(3): 679 - 686. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. A Yi, K. S. Lee, T. S. Kim, D. Han, Y. M. Sung, and S. Kim Multidetector CT of Bronchiectasis: Effect of Radiation Dose on Image Quality Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2003; 181(2): 501 - 505. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. E. Chiang, P. M. Boiselle, V. Raptopoulos, K. F. Reynolds, M. P. Rosen, and M. Simon Detection of Pulmonary Embolism: Comparison of Paddlewheel and Coronal CT Reformations--Initial Experience Radiology, August 1, 2003; 228(2): 577 - 582. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Yoshida, H. Akiba, M. Tamakawa, N. Yama, M. Hareyama, K. Morishita, and T. Abe Thoracic Involvement of Type A Aortic Dissection and Intramural Hematoma: Diagnostic Accuracy--Comparison of Emergency Helical CT and Surgical Findings Radiology, August 1, 2003; 228(2): 430 - 435. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. O. Philipp, M. A. Funovics, F. A. Mann, A. M. Herneth, M. H. Fuchsjaeger, F. Grabenwoeger, G. Lechner, and V. M. Metz Four-Channel Multidetector CT in Facial Fractures: Do We Need 2 x 0.5 mm Collimation? Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2003; 180(6): 1707 - 1713. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. K. Gupta, R. C. Nelson, G. A. Johnson, E. K. Paulson, D. M. Delong, and T. T. Yoshizumi Optimization of Eight-Element Multi-Detector Row Helical CT Technology for Evaluation of the Abdomen Radiology, June 1, 2003; 227(3): 739 - 745. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Alvarez-Linera, J. Benito-Leon, J. Escribano, J. Campollo, and R. Gesto Prospective Evaluation of Carotid Artery Stenosis: Elliptic Centric Contrast-Enhanced MR Angiography and Spiral CT Angiography Compared with Digital Subtraction Angiography AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., May 1, 2003; 24(5): 1012 - 1019. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. R. Francis, R. H. Cohan, N. J. McNulty, J. F. Platt, M. Korobkin, A. Gebremariam, and K. Ragupathi Multidetector CT of the Liver and Hepatic Neoplasms: Effect of Multiphasic Imaging on Tumor Conspicuity and Vascular Enhancement Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2003; 180(5): 1217 - 1224. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Catalano, F. Fraioli, A. Laghi, A. Napoli, F. Pediconi, M. Danti, P. Nardis, and R. Passariello High-Resolution Multidetector CT in the Preoperative Evaluation of Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2003; 180(5): 1271 - 1277. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. S. Lee, T. K. Kim, J. H. Byun, H. K. Ha, P. N. Kim, A. Y. Kim, S. G. Lee, and M.-G. Lee Hepatic Arteries in Potential Donors for Living Related Liver Transplantation: Evaluation with Multi-Detector Row CT Angiography Radiology, May 1, 2003; 227(2): 391 - 399. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Albers, J. M. Boese, C. F. Vahl, and S. Hagl In vivo validation of cardiac spiral computed tomography using retrospective gating Ann. Thorac. Surg., March 1, 2003; 75(3): 885 - 889. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Laghi, R. Iannaccone, P. Rossi, I. Carbone, R. Ferrari, F. Mangiapane, I. Nofroni, and R. Passariello Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Detection with Triple-Phase Multi-Detector Row Helical CT in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis Radiology, February 1, 2003; 226(2): 543 - 549. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Hunold, F. M. Vogt, A. Schmermund, J. F. Debatin, G. Kerkhoff, T. Budde, R. Erbel, K. Ewen, and J. Barkhausen Radiation Exposure during Cardiac CT: Effective Doses at Multi-Detector Row CT and Electron-Beam CT Radiology, January 1, 2003; 226(1): 145 - 152. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Kozuka, T. Johkoh, S. Hamada, H. Naito, N. Tomiyama, M. Koyama, N. Mihara, O. Honda, H. Nakamura, and M. Kudo Detection of Pulmonary Metastases with Multi-Detector Row CT Scans of 5-mm Nominal Section Thickness: Autopsy Lung Study Radiology, January 1, 2003; 226(1): 231 - 234. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. D. McTavish, M. Jinzaki, K. H. Zou, R. D. Nawfel, and S. G. Silverman Multi-Detector Row CT Urography: Comparison of Strategies for Depicting the Normal Urinary Collecting System Radiology, December 1, 2002; 225(3): 783 - 790. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y. Nakano, N. L. Muller, G. G. King, A. Niimi, S. E. Kalloger, M. Mishima, and P. D. Pare Quantitative Assessment of Airway Remodeling Using High-Resolution CT Chest, December 1, 2002; 122(6_suppl): 271S - 275S. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. G. McFarland, T. K. Pilgram, J. A. Brink, R. A. McDermott, C. V. Santillan, P. W. Brady, J. P. Heiken, D. M. Balfe, L. B. Weinstock, E. P. Thyssen, et al. CT Colonography: Multiobserver Diagnostic Performance Radiology, November 1, 2002; 225(2): 380 - 390. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. M. Boiselle, K. F. Reynolds, and A. Ernst Multiplanar and Three-Dimensional Imaging of the Central Airways with Multidetector CT Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2002; 179(2): 301 - 308. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Kawata, T. Murakami, T. Kim, M. Hori, M. P. Federle, S. Kumano, E. Sugihara, S. Makino, H. Nakamura, and M. Kudo Multidetector CT: Diagnostic Impact of Slice Thickness on Detection of Hypervascular Hepatocellular Carcinoma Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2002; 179(1): 61 - 66. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Mahesh The AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Search for Isotropic Resolution in CT from Conventional through Multiple-Row Detector RadioGraphics, July 1, 2002; 22(4): 949 - 962. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. M. Boiselle and A. Ernst Recent Advances in Central Airway Imaging* Chest, May 1, 2002; 121(5): 1651 - 1660. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. R. Ros and H. Ji Special Focus Session: Multisection (Multidetector) CT: Applications in the Abdomen RadioGraphics, May 1, 2002; 22(3): 697 - 700. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. D. Foley Special Focus Session: Multidetector CT: Abdominal Visceral Imaging RadioGraphics, May 1, 2002; 22(3): 701 - 719. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. R. Verdun, A. Denys, J.-F. Valley, P. Schnyder, and R. A. Meuli Detection of Low-Contrast Objects: Experimental Comparison of Single- and Multi-Detector Row CT with a Phantom Radiology, March 21, 2002; (2002) 2232010810. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S J Golding and P C Shrimpton Radiation dose in CT: are we meeting the challenge? Br. J. Radiol., January 1, 2002; 75(889): 1 - 4. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Sakon, H. Nagano, S. Nakamori, K. Dono, K. Umeshita, T. Murakami, H. Nakamura, and M. Monden Intrahepatic Recurrences of Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Hepatectomy: Analysis Based on Tumor Hemodynamics Arch Surg, January 1, 2002; 137(1): 94 - 99. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
U J Schoepf, C R Becker, R D Bruening, B M Ohnesorge, A Huber, L-G Haw, H Hildebrandt, and M F Reiser Multislice CT angiography Imaging, December 15, 2001; 13(5): 357 - 365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y. NAKANO, H. O. COXSON, S. BOSAN, R. M. ROGERS, F. C. SCIURBA, R. J. KEENAN, K. R. WALLEY, P. D. PARE, and J. C. HOGG Core to Rind Distribution of Severe Emphysema Predicts Outcome of Lung Volume Reduction Surgery Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., December 15, 2001; 164(12): 2195 - 2199. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Y. Sze, M. K. Razavi, S. K. S. So, and R. B. Jeffrey Jr. Impact of Multidetector CT Hepatic Arteriography on the Planning of Chemoembolization Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2001; 177(6): 1339 - 1345. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. S. Katz and M. Hon CT Angiography of the Lower Extremities and Aortoiliac System with a Multi-Detector Row Helical CT Scanner: Promise of New Opportunities Fulfilled Radiology, October 1, 2001; 221(1): 7 - 10. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. K. Fishman From the RSNA Refresher Courses: CT Angiography: Clinical Applications in the Abdomen RadioGraphics, October 1, 2001; 21(90001): S3 - 16. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Ji, J. D. McTavish, K. J. Mortele, W. Wiesner, and P. R. Ros Hepatic Imaging with Multidetector CT RadioGraphics, October 1, 2001; 21(90001): S71 - 80. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. J. McNulty, I. R. Francis, J. F. Platt, R. H. Cohan, M. Korobkin, and A. Gebremariam 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, July 1, 2001; 220(1): 97 - 102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. R. Jones, R. T. Kaplan, B. Lane, S. W. Atlas, and G. D. Rubin Single- versus Multi-Detector Row CT of the Brain: Quality Assessment Radiology, June 1, 2001; 219(3): 750 - 755. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. T. Bae and B. R. Whiting CT Data Storage Reduction by Means of Compressing Projection Data Instead of Images: Feasibility Study Radiology, June 1, 2001; 219(3): 850 - 855. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. A. Buckwalter, J. Rydberg, K. K. Kopecky, K. Crow, and E. L. Yang Musculoskeletal Imaging with Multislice CT Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2001; 176(4): 979 - 986. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Murakami, T. Kim, M. Takamura, M. Hori, S. Takahashi, M. P. Federle, K. Tsuda, K. Osuga, S. Kawata, H. Nakamura, et al. Hypervascular Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Detection with Double Arterial Phase Multi-Detector Row Helical CT Radiology, March 1, 2001; 218(3): 763 - 767. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. L. Weber History of Head and Neck Radiology: Past, Present, and Future Radiology, January 1, 2001; 218(1): 15 - 24. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. L. Spielmann, R. C. Nelson, C. R. Lowry, G. A. Johnson, G. Sundaramoothy, D. H. Sheafor, and E. K. Paulson Liver: Single Breath-hold Dynamic Subtraction CT with Multi-Detector Row Helical Technology—Feasibility Study Radiology, January 1, 2002; 222(1): 278 - 283. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
