痛风性关节炎中单钠尿酸盐 (MSU) 定量的物质分解方法:(生物)模型研究。

IF 3.7 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Torsten Diekhoff, Sydney Alexandra Schmolke, Karim Khayata, Jürgen Mews, Maximilian Kotlyarov
{"title":"痛风性关节炎中单钠尿酸盐 (MSU) 定量的物质分解方法:(生物)模型研究。","authors":"Torsten Diekhoff, Sydney Alexandra Schmolke, Karim Khayata, Jürgen Mews, Maximilian Kotlyarov","doi":"10.1186/s41747-024-00528-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) is a noninvasive diagnostic tool for gouty arthritis. This study aimed to compare two postprocessing techniques for monosodium urate (MSU) detection: conventional two-material decomposition and material map-based decomposition.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A raster phantom and an ex vivo biophantom, embedded with four different MSU concentrations, were scanned in two high-end CT scanners. Scanner 1 used the conventional postprocessing method while scanner 2 employed the material map approach. Volumetric analysis was performed to determine MSU detection, and image quality parameters, such as signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), were computed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The material map-based method demonstrated superior MSU detection. Specifically, scanner 2 yielded total MSU volumes of 5.29 ± 0.28 mL and 4.52 ± 0.29 mL (mean ± standard deviation) in the raster and biophantom, respectively, versus 2.35 ± 0.23 mL and 1.15 ± 0.17 mL for scanner 1. Radiation dose correlated positively with detection for the conventional scanner, while there was no such correlation for the material map-based decomposition method in the biophantom. Despite its higher detection rate, material map-based decomposition was inferior in terms of SNR, CNR, and artifacts.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While material map-based decomposition resulted in superior MSU detection, it is limited by challenges such as increased artifacts. Our findings highlight the potential of this method for gout diagnosis while underscoring the need for further research to enhance its clinical reliability.</p><p><strong>Relevance statement: </strong>Advanced postprocessing such as material-map-based two-material decomposition might improve the sensitivity for gouty arthritis in clinical practice, thus, allowing for lower radiation doses or better sensitivity for gouty tophi.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Dual-energy CT showed limited sensitivity for tophi with low MSU concentrations. Materiel-map-based decomposition increased sensitivity compared to conventional two-material decomposition. The advantages of material-map-based decomposition outweigh lower image quality and increased artifact load.</p>","PeriodicalId":36926,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology Experimental","volume":"8 1","pages":"127"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11549270/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Material decomposition approaches for monosodium urate (MSU) quantification in gouty arthritis: a (bio)phantom study.\",\"authors\":\"Torsten Diekhoff, Sydney Alexandra Schmolke, Karim Khayata, Jürgen Mews, Maximilian Kotlyarov\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41747-024-00528-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) is a noninvasive diagnostic tool for gouty arthritis. This study aimed to compare two postprocessing techniques for monosodium urate (MSU) detection: conventional two-material decomposition and material map-based decomposition.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A raster phantom and an ex vivo biophantom, embedded with four different MSU concentrations, were scanned in two high-end CT scanners. Scanner 1 used the conventional postprocessing method while scanner 2 employed the material map approach. Volumetric analysis was performed to determine MSU detection, and image quality parameters, such as signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), were computed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The material map-based method demonstrated superior MSU detection. Specifically, scanner 2 yielded total MSU volumes of 5.29 ± 0.28 mL and 4.52 ± 0.29 mL (mean ± standard deviation) in the raster and biophantom, respectively, versus 2.35 ± 0.23 mL and 1.15 ± 0.17 mL for scanner 1. Radiation dose correlated positively with detection for the conventional scanner, while there was no such correlation for the material map-based decomposition method in the biophantom. Despite its higher detection rate, material map-based decomposition was inferior in terms of SNR, CNR, and artifacts.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While material map-based decomposition resulted in superior MSU detection, it is limited by challenges such as increased artifacts. Our findings highlight the potential of this method for gout diagnosis while underscoring the need for further research to enhance its clinical reliability.</p><p><strong>Relevance statement: </strong>Advanced postprocessing such as material-map-based two-material decomposition might improve the sensitivity for gouty arthritis in clinical practice, thus, allowing for lower radiation doses or better sensitivity for gouty tophi.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Dual-energy CT showed limited sensitivity for tophi with low MSU concentrations. Materiel-map-based decomposition increased sensitivity compared to conventional two-material decomposition. The advantages of material-map-based decomposition outweigh lower image quality and increased artifact load.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36926,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Radiology Experimental\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"127\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11549270/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Radiology Experimental\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-024-00528-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology Experimental","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-024-00528-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:双能计算机断层扫描(DECT)是痛风性关节炎的一种无创诊断工具。本研究旨在比较两种检测尿酸单钠(MSU)的后处理技术:传统的双材料分解和基于材料图的分解:方法:在两台高端 CT 扫描仪上扫描了嵌入四种不同浓度 MSU 的光栅模型和体外生物模型。扫描仪 1 采用传统的后处理方法,而扫描仪 2 则采用材料图方法。进行了容积分析以确定 MSU 检测情况,并计算了信噪比 (SNR) 和对比度-噪声比 (CNR) 等图像质量参数:结果:基于材料图的方法在 MSU 检测方面表现优异。具体而言,扫描仪 2 在光栅和生物模型中检测到的 MSU 总体积分别为 5.29 ± 0.28 mL 和 4.52 ± 0.29 mL(平均值 ± 标准偏差),而扫描仪 1 检测到的 MSU 总体积分别为 2.35 ± 0.23 mL 和 1.15 ± 0.17 mL。传统扫描仪的辐射剂量与检出率呈正相关,而基于材料图的分解方法在生物模型中则没有这种相关性。尽管基于材料图的分解法的检测率较高,但在信噪比、净信噪比和伪影方面却较差:结论:虽然基于材料图的分解法在 MSU 检测方面更胜一筹,但它也受到诸如伪影增加等挑战的限制。我们的研究结果凸显了这种方法在痛风诊断中的潜力,同时也强调了进一步研究以提高其临床可靠性的必要性:先进的后处理方法,如基于材料图的双材料分解,可能会提高临床实践中痛风性关节炎的灵敏度,从而降低辐射剂量或提高痛风性趾脓的灵敏度:要点:双能量 CT 对 MSU 浓度较低的痛风灶的敏感性有限。与传统的双材料分解法相比,基于材料图的分解法提高了灵敏度。基于材料图的分解方法的优势大于较低的图像质量和增加的伪影负荷。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Material decomposition approaches for monosodium urate (MSU) quantification in gouty arthritis: a (bio)phantom study.

Background: Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) is a noninvasive diagnostic tool for gouty arthritis. This study aimed to compare two postprocessing techniques for monosodium urate (MSU) detection: conventional two-material decomposition and material map-based decomposition.

Methods: A raster phantom and an ex vivo biophantom, embedded with four different MSU concentrations, were scanned in two high-end CT scanners. Scanner 1 used the conventional postprocessing method while scanner 2 employed the material map approach. Volumetric analysis was performed to determine MSU detection, and image quality parameters, such as signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), were computed.

Results: The material map-based method demonstrated superior MSU detection. Specifically, scanner 2 yielded total MSU volumes of 5.29 ± 0.28 mL and 4.52 ± 0.29 mL (mean ± standard deviation) in the raster and biophantom, respectively, versus 2.35 ± 0.23 mL and 1.15 ± 0.17 mL for scanner 1. Radiation dose correlated positively with detection for the conventional scanner, while there was no such correlation for the material map-based decomposition method in the biophantom. Despite its higher detection rate, material map-based decomposition was inferior in terms of SNR, CNR, and artifacts.

Conclusion: While material map-based decomposition resulted in superior MSU detection, it is limited by challenges such as increased artifacts. Our findings highlight the potential of this method for gout diagnosis while underscoring the need for further research to enhance its clinical reliability.

Relevance statement: Advanced postprocessing such as material-map-based two-material decomposition might improve the sensitivity for gouty arthritis in clinical practice, thus, allowing for lower radiation doses or better sensitivity for gouty tophi.

Key points: Dual-energy CT showed limited sensitivity for tophi with low MSU concentrations. Materiel-map-based decomposition increased sensitivity compared to conventional two-material decomposition. The advantages of material-map-based decomposition outweigh lower image quality and increased artifact load.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Radiology Experimental
European Radiology Experimental Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
56
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信