Comparison of the performance of conventional and spectral-based tagged stool cleansing algorithms at CT colonography.
Comparison of the performance of conventional and spectral-based tagged stool cleansing algorithms at CT colonography.
复制标题
CT 结肠成像中传统和基于光谱的标记粪便清洁算法的性能比较。
DOI：
10.1007/s00330-022-08831-2
复制
发表时间：
2022
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Yeh,BenjaminM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Grosu,Sergio;Wiemker,Rafael;An,Chansik;Obmann,MarkusM;Wong,Eddy;Yee,Judy;Yeh,BenjaminM
目的比较使用双层光谱探测器扫描仪进行碘标记 CT 结肠成像 (CTC) 的传统电子粪便清洁与基于光谱的电子粪便清洁的性能。方法我们回顾性评估了在双层光谱探测器 CT 扫描仪上获得的 30 名连续接受结直肠癌筛查的患者（平均年龄：69 ± 8 岁）的碘对比粪便标记 CTC 扫描。一位读者在传统图像和光谱净化图像上识别出电子净化伪影的位置 (n= 229)。另外三位独立读者使用传统的清洁算法（Intellispace Portal）和两种实验性光谱清洁算法（即完全透明和半透明的标记粪便）评估了这些位置。对于每个清理后的图像集，读者以 5 点李克特量表（0 = 无到 4 = 严重）记录过度和清理不足伪影的严重程度，以及与未清理图像相比的可读性。 Wilcoxon 的符号秩检验用于评估伪影严重性、类型和可读性（更差、不变或更好）。 结果与传统清洁（66% 得分 ≥ 2）相比，透明（60% 得分 ≥ 2，p= 0.011）和半透明（50% 得分 ≥ 2，p< 0.001）光谱清洁的整体清洁伪影的严重程度较低。与传统清洁（60% 得分 ≥ 2）相比，透明（49% 得分 ≥ 2，p< 0.001）和半透明（39% 得分 ≥ 2，p< 0.001）光谱清洁中的清洁不足伪影严重程度较低。与传统清洁（9% 得分 ≥ 2）相比，透明（17% 得分 ≥ 2，p< 0.001）和半透明（14% 得分 ≥ 2，p= 0.023）光谱清洁的过度清洁伪影严重程度更差。与传统清洁相比，透明 (p< 0.001) 和半透明 (p< 0.001) 光谱清洁的总体可读性显着提高。结论与传统清洁相比，光谱清洁在 CTC 中为碘标记粪便提供了更强大的电子粪便清洁功能。要点• CT 结肠成像中基于光谱的标记粪便电子清洁可提供更高质量的图像，并且比传统清洁更少的伪影感知。• 基于光谱的电子清洁可能会以最低限度地推进CT 结肠成像的泻药方法。需要进一步的临床试验。
ObjectivesTo compare the performance of conventional versus spectral-based electronic stool cleansing for iodine-tagged CT colonography (CTC) using a dual-layer spectral detector scanner.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated iodine contrast stool-tagged CTC scans of 30 consecutive patients (mean age: 69 ± 8 years) undergoing colorectal cancer screening obtained on a dual-layer spectral detector CT scanner. One reader identified locations of electronic cleansing artifacts (n= 229) on conventional and spectral cleansed images. Three additional independent readers evaluated these locations using a conventional cleansing algorithm (Intellispace Portal) and two experimental spectral cleansing algorithms (i.e., fully transparent and translucent tagged stool). For each cleansed image set, readers recorded the severity of over- and under-cleansing artifacts on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = none to 4 = severe) and readability compared to uncleansed images. Wilcoxon’s signed-rank tests were used to assess artifact severity, type, and readability (worse, unchanged, or better).ResultsCompared with conventional cleansing (66% score ≥ 2), the severity of overall cleansing artifacts was lower in transparent (60% score ≥ 2,p= 0.011) and translucent (50% score ≥ 2,p< 0.001) spectral cleansing. Under-cleansing artifact severity was lower in transparent (49% score ≥ 2,p< 0.001) and translucent (39% score ≥ 2,p< 0.001) spectral cleansing compared with conventional cleansing (60% score ≥ 2). Over-cleansing artifact severity was worse in transparent (17% score ≥ 2,p< 0.001) and translucent (14% score ≥ 2,p= 0.023) spectral cleansing compared with conventional cleansing (9% score ≥ 2). Overall readability was significantly improved in transparent (p< 0.001) and translucent (p< 0.001) spectral cleansing compared with conventional cleansing.ConclusionsSpectral cleansing provided more robust electronic stool cleansing of iodine-tagged stool at CTC than conventional cleansing.Key Points• Spectral-based electronic cleansing of tagged stool at CT colonography provides higher quality images with less perception of artifacts than does conventional cleansing.• Spectral-based electronic cleansing could potentially advance minimally cathartic approach for CT colonography. Further clinical trials are warranted.