Investigating the relationship between virtual cystoscopy image quality and CT slice thickness

被引:9
作者
Lalondrelle, S. [1 ,3 ]
Sohaib, S. A. [2 ]
Castellano, I. A. [4 ]
Mears, D. [2 ]
Huddart, R. [1 ,3 ]
Khoo, V. [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Royal Marsden NHS Fdn Trust, Acad Urol Unit, London, England
[2] Royal Marsden NHS Fdn Trust, Dept Radiol, London, England
[3] Inst Canc Res, London SW3 6JB, England
[4] Royal Marsden NHS Fdn Trust, Dept Phys, London, England
关键词
MATERIAL-FILLED BLADDER; MULTIDETECTOR ROW CT; COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; COLONOGRAPHY; COMPLICATIONS; OPTIMIZATION; RESECTION; PHANTOM; POLYPS; TUMORS;
D O I
10.1259/bjr/99567374
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Objective: To investigate the effect of reconstruction slice thickness on image quality at CT virtual cystoscopy (VC). Methods: Pelvic CT examinations in bladder cancer patients were reconstructed at different slice thicknesses (0.6-5 mm) and intervals, and resulting VC images assessed. Quality indicators were ridging, holes, floaters and dimpling artefacts, tumour definition, and an overall score, ranked 1 (best) to 7 (worst). CT number and standard deviation (SD) for bladder contents and bladder wall were recorded. The mean SD was used as a measure of noise, and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was calculated as the CT number difference between them divided by the average image noise. The mean CNR across the three levels was used for analysis. Each qualitative image quality measure was compared with CT number, noise and CNR measurements. Results: Dimpling artefacts increased with thinner slice reconstruction and correlated with increased noise, often resulting in poor tumour definition. The best overall image quality score was seen for VC images reconstructed at 1.2 mm slice thickness, probably because of the competing effects of spatial resolution and CNR. Conclusion: A slice thickness reconstruction <1.2 mm does not provide for better image quality at VC owing to the presence of increased noise.
引用
收藏
页码:1112 / 1117
页数:6
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]   Consensus on current clinical practice of virtual colonoscopy [J].
Barish, MA ;
Soto, JA ;
Ferrucci, JT .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2005, 184 (03) :786-792
[2]   Diagnostic potential of virtual cystoscopy of the bladder: MRI vs CT. Preliminary report [J].
Bernhardt, TM ;
Schmidl, H ;
Philipp, C ;
Allhoff, EP ;
Rapp-Bernhardt, U .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2003, 13 (02) :305-312
[3]   CT cystography and virtual cystoscopy in the assessment of new and recurrent bladder neoplasms [J].
Browne, RFJ ;
Murphy, SM ;
Grainger, R ;
Hamilton, S .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2005, 53 (01) :147-153
[4]   Early complications of endoscopic treatment for superficial bladder tumors [J].
Collado, A ;
Chéchile, GE ;
Salvador, J ;
Vicente, J .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2000, 164 (05) :1529-1532
[5]   Optimization of scanning parameters for multi-slice CT colonography: Experiments with synthetic and animal phantoms [J].
Embleton, KV ;
Nicholson, DA ;
Hufton, AP ;
Jackson, A .
CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2003, 58 (12) :955-963
[6]   Virtual cystoscopy: Early clinical experience [J].
Fenlon, HM ;
Bell, TV ;
Ahari, HK ;
Hussain, S .
RADIOLOGY, 1997, 205 (01) :272-275
[7]   Risk factors for adverse outcomes after transurethral resection of bladder tumors [J].
Hollenbeck, BK ;
Miller, DC ;
Taub, D ;
Dunn, RL ;
Khuri, SF ;
Henderson, WG ;
Montie, JE ;
Underwood, W ;
Wei, JT .
CANCER, 2006, 106 (07) :1527-1535
[8]   Thin-section helical computed tomography of the bladder: Initial clinical experience with virtual reality imaging [J].
Hussain, S ;
Loeffler, JA ;
Babayan, RK ;
Fenlon, HM .
UROLOGY, 1997, 50 (05) :685-688
[9]   Comparison of virtual cystoscopy, multiplanar reformation, and source CT images with contrast material-filled bladder for detecting lesions [J].
Kim, JK ;
Park, SY ;
Kim, HS ;
Kim, SH ;
Cho, KS .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2005, 185 (03) :689-696
[10]   Virtual cystoscopy of the contrast material-filled bladder in patients with gross hematuria [J].
Kim, JK ;
Ahn, JH ;
Park, T ;
Ahn, HJ ;
Kim, CS ;
Cho, KS .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2002, 179 (03) :763-768