Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Impact of Photon-Counting Detector Computed Tomography on Image Quality and Radiation Dose in Patients With Multiple Myeloma

  • Alexander Rau (Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg) ;
  • Jakob Neubauer (Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg) ;
  • Laetitia Taleb (Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg) ;
  • Thomas Stein (Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg) ;
  • Till Schuermann (Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg) ;
  • Stephan Rau (Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg) ;
  • Sebastian Faby (Siemens Healthcare GmbH) ;
  • Sina Wenger (Department of Hematology and Oncology, Interdisciplinary Cancer Center, Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg) ;
  • Monika Engelhardt (Department of Hematology and Oncology, Interdisciplinary Cancer Center, Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg) ;
  • Fabian Bamberg (Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg) ;
  • Jakob Weiss (Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg)
  • Received : 2023.03.15
  • Accepted : 2023.08.01
  • Published : 2023.10.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: Computed tomography (CT) is an established method for the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of multiple myeloma. Here, we investigated the potential of photon-counting detector computed tomography (PCD-CT) in terms of image quality, diagnostic confidence, and radiation dose compared with energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT). Materials and Methods: In this prospective study, patients with known multiple myeloma underwent clinically indicated whole-body PCD-CT. The image quality of PCD-CT was assessed qualitatively by three independent radiologists for overall image quality, edge sharpness, image noise, lesion conspicuity, and diagnostic confidence using a 5-point Likert scale (5 = excellent), and quantitatively for signal homogeneity using the coefficient of variation (CV) of Hounsfield Units (HU) values and modulation transfer function (MTF) via the full width at half maximum (FWHM) in the frequency space. The results were compared with those of the current clinical standard EID-CT protocols as controls. Additionally, the radiation dose (CTDIvol) was determined. Results: We enrolled 35 patients with multiple myeloma (mean age 69.8 ± 9.1 years; 18 [51%] males). Qualitative image analysis revealed superior scores (median [interquartile range]) for PCD-CT regarding overall image quality (4.0 [4.0-5.0] vs. 4.0 [3.0-4.0]), edge sharpness (4.0 [4.0-5.0] vs. 4.0 [3.0-4.0]), image noise (4.0 [4.0-4.0] vs. 3.0 [3.0-4.0]), lesion conspicuity (4.0 [4.0-5.0] vs. 4.0 [3.0-4.0]), and diagnostic confidence (4.0 [4.0-5.0] vs. 4.0 [3.0-4.0]) compared with EID-CT (P ≤ 0.004). In quantitative image analyses, PCD-CT compared with EID-CT revealed a substantially lower FWHM (2.89 vs. 25.68 cy/pixel) and a significantly more homogeneous signal (mean CV ± standard deviation [SD], 0.99 ± 0.65 vs. 1.66 ± 0.5; P < 0.001) at a significantly lower radiation dose (mean CTDIvol ± SD, 3.33 ± 0.82 vs. 7.19 ± 3.57 mGy; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Whole-body PCD-CT provides significantly higher subjective and objective image quality at significantly reduced radiation doses than the current clinical standard EID-CT protocols, along with readily available multi-spectral data, facilitating the potential for further advanced post-processing.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Alexander Rau was supported by Berta-Ottenstein-Programme for Clinician Scientists, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg.

References

  1. Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, Blade J, Merlini G, Mateos MV, et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:e538-e548
  2. Kumar SK, Rajkumar V, Kyle RA, van Duin M, Sonneveld P, Mateos MV, et al. Multiple myeloma. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2017;3:17046
  3. Dimopoulos MA, Moreau P, Terpos E, Mateos MV, Zweegman S, Cook G, et al. Multiple myeloma: EHA-ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up†. Ann Oncol 2021;32:309-322
  4. Silbermann R, Roodman GD. Myeloma bone disease: pathophysiology and management. J Bone Oncol 2013;2:59-69
  5. Princewill K, Kyere S, Awan O, Mulligan M. Multiple myeloma lesion detection with whole body CT versus radiographic skeletal survey. Cancer Invest 2013;31:206-211
  6. Caers J, Garderet L, Kortum KM, O'Dwyer ME, van de Donk NWCJ, Binder M, et al. European Myeloma Network recommendations on tools for the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple myeloma: what to use and when. Haematologica 2018;103:1772-1784
  7. Werner S, Krauss B, Horger M. Dual-energy CT-based bone marrow imaging in multiple myeloma: assessment of focal lesions in relation to disease status and MRI findings. Acad Radiol 2022;29:245-254
  8. Koutoulidis V, Terpos E, Klapa I, Cheliotis G, NtanasisStathopoulos I, Boultadaki A, et al. Whole-body low-dose CT in multiple myeloma: diagnostic value of appendicular medullary patterns of attenuation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021;216:742-751
  9. Kosmala A, Weng AM, Heidemeier A, Krauss B, Knop S, Bley TA, et al. Multiple myeloma and dual-energy CT: diagnostic accuracy of virtual noncalcium technique for detection of bone marrow infiltration of the spine and pelvis. Radiology 2018;286:205-213
  10. Choi SJ, Ahn SJ, Park SH, Park SH, Pak SY, Choi JW, et al. Dual-source abdominopelvic computed tomography: comparison of image quality and radiation dose of 80 kVp and 80/150 kVp with tin filter. PLoS One 2020;15:e0231431
  11. Willemink MJ, Persson M, Pourmorteza A, Pelc NJ, Fleischmann D. Photon-counting CT: technical principles and clinical prospects. Radiology 2018;289:293-312
  12. Esquivel A, Ferrero A, Mileto A, Baffour F, Horst K, Rajiah PS, et al. Photon-counting detector CT: key points radiologists should know. Korean J Radiol 2022;23:854-865
  13. Vaishnav JY, Jung WC, Popescu LM, Zeng R, Myers KJ. Objective assessment of image quality and dose reduction in CT iterative reconstruction. Med Phys 2014;41:071904
  14. Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2011
  15. Baffour FI, Huber NR, Ferrero A, Rajendran K, Glazebrook KN, Larson NB, et al. Photon-counting detector CT with deep learning noise reduction to detect multiple myeloma. Radiology 2023;306:229-236
  16. Grunz JP, Huflage H, Heidenreich JF, Ergun S, Petersilka M, Allmendinger T, et al. Image quality assessment for clinical cadmium telluride-based photon-counting computed tomography detector in cadaveric wrist imaging. Invest Radiol 2021;56:785-790
  17. Rajendran K, Petersilka M, Henning A, Shanblatt E, Marsh J Jr, Thorne J, et al. Full field-of-view, high-resolution, photoncounting detector CT: technical assessment and initial patient experience. Phys Med Biol 2021;66:205019
  18. Evans RE, Taylor SA, Beare S, Halligan S, Morton A, Oliver A, et al. Perceived patient burden and acceptability of whole body MRI for staging lung and colorectal cancer; comparison with standard staging investigations. Br J Radiol 2018;91:20170731
  19. Ormond Filho AG, Carneiro BC, Pastore D, Silva IP, Yamashita SR, Consolo FD, et al. Whole-body imaging of multiple myeloma: diagnostic criteria. Radiographics 2019;39:1077-1097