Duan, Xinhui

Abstract Background Cardiomegaly is a clinically significant incidental finding on chest computed tomography (CT) associated with heart failure, arrhythmias, and sudden cardiac death. Qualitative radiologist assessment is variable, and automated AI tools may enable objective opportunistic cardiac volumetry. Purpose To evaluate whether AI-enabled total cardiac volume (TCVAI) derived from non-ECG-gated, non-contrast chest CT can identify cardiomegaly as defined by echocardiography. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included 307 consecutive patients (median age, 67 years; 56% male) who underwent non-contrast chest CT at a single center on 7 scanner types (4 vendors) and clinically indicated echocardiography within 31 days. A commercially available AI tool (AI-Rad Companion, Siemens Healthineers) automatically quantified TCVAI, indexed to body surface area (TCVAI/BSA). Echocardiography reports were reviewed for chamber dilation and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), collectively defined as cardiomegaly. Associations between TCVAI/BSA and echocardiographic findings were assessed using correlation, ordinal regression, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC). Interscan repeatability was evaluated in 248 patients with 544 repeat CT examinations. Prespecified sex-specific thresholds were tested in a temporally independent validation cohort of 50 patients. Results Median TCVAI was higher in patients with cardiomegaly than those without (1061.9 vs 798.4 mL; P < .001). TCVAI/BSA was associated with chamber dilation and LVH severity on univariate analysis and remained associated in multivariable ordinal models, except for right ventricular dilation. Discriminatory performance was fair to good, with area under the curve (AUC) 0.81 (95% CI, 0.75-0.87) in men and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.69-0.85) in women. Interscan repeatability was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]: 0.93). In independent validation, performance ranged from sensitivity 89.3%/specificity 27.3% at a high-sensitivity threshold to sensitivity 28.6%/specificity 100% at a high-specificity threshold. Conclusion AI-derived cardiac volume from routine chest CT shows fair to good performance for identifying echocardiography-defined cardiomegaly with high measurement repeatability, supporting a potential role for automated cardiac volumetry as an objective, opportunistic biomarker.

AbstractMulti‐energy computed tomography (MECT) offers the opportunity for advanced visualization, detection, and quantification of select elements (e.g., iodine) or materials (e.g., fat) beyond the capability of standard single‐energy computed tomography (CT). However, the use of MECT requires careful consideration as substantially different hardware and software approaches have been used by manufacturers, including different sets of user‐selected or hidden parameters that affect the performance and radiation dose of MECT. Another important consideration when designing MECT protocols is appreciation of the specific tasks being performed; for instance, differentiating between two different materials or quantifying a specific element. For a given task, it is imperative to consider both the radiation dose and task‐specific image quality requirements. Development of a quality control (QC) program is essential to ensure the accuracy and reproducibility of these MECT applications. Although standard QC procedures have been well established for conventional single‐energy CT, the substantial differences between single‐energy CT and MECT in terms of system implementations, imaging protocols, and clinical tasks warrant QC tests specific to MECT. This task group was therefore charged with developing a systematic QC program designed to meet the needs of MECT applications. In this report, we review the various MECT approaches that are commercially available, including information about hardware implementation, MECT image types, image reconstruction, and postprocessing techniques that are unique to MECT. We address the requirements for MECT phantoms, review representative commercial MECT phantoms, and offer guidance regarding homemade MECT phantoms. We discuss the development of MECT protocols, which must be designed carefully with proper consideration of MECT technology, imaging task, and radiation dose. We then outline specific recommended QC tests in terms of general image quality, radiation dose, differentiation and quantification tasks, and diagnostic and therapeutic applications.

Purpose To describe a large, publicly available dataset comprising computed tomography (CT) projection data from patient exams, both at routine clinical doses and simulated lower doses. Acquisition and Validation Methods The library was developed under local ethics committee approval. Projection and image data from 299 clinically performed patient CT exams were archived for three types of clinical exams: noncontrast head CT scans acquired for acute cognitive or motor deficit, low‐dose noncontrast chest scans acquired to screen high‐risk patients for pulmonary nodules, and contrast‐enhanced CT scans of the abdomen acquired to look for metastatic liver lesions. Scans were performed on CT systems from two different CT manufacturers using routine clinical protocols. Projection data were validated by reconstructing the data using several different reconstruction algorithms and through use of the data in the 2016 Low Dose CT Grand Challenge. Reduced dose projection data were simulated for each scan using a validated noise‐insertion method. Radiologists marked location and diagnosis for detected pathologies. Reference truth was obtained from the patient medical record, either from histology or subsequent imaging. Data Format and Usage Notes Projection datasets were converted into the previously developed DICOM‐CT‐PD format, which is an extended DICOM format created to store CT projections and acquisition geometry in a nonproprietary format. Image data are stored in the standard DICOM image format and clinical data in a spreadsheet. Materials are provided to help investigators use the DICOM‐CT‐PD files, including a dictionary file, data reader, and user manual. The library is publicly available from The Cancer Imaging Archive ( https://doi.org/10.7937/9npb‐2637 ). Potential Applications This CT data library will facilitate the development and validation of new CT reconstruction and/or denoising algorithms, including those associated with machine learning or artificial intelligence. The provided clinical information allows evaluation of task‐based diagnostic performance.

In x‐ray computed tomography (CT), materials with different elemental compositions can have identical CT number values, depending on the mass density of each material and the energy of the detected x‐ray beam. Differentiating and classifying different tissue types and contrast agents can thus be extremely challenging. In multienergy CT, one or more additional attenuation measurements are obtained at a second, third or more energy. This allows the differentiation of at least two materials. Commercial dual‐energy CT systems (only two energy measurements) are now available either using sequential acquisitions of low‐ and high‐tube potential scans, fast tube‐potential switching, beam filtration combined with spiral scanning, dual‐source, or dual‐layer detector approaches. The use of energy‐resolving, photon‐counting detectors is now being evaluated on research systems. Irrespective of the technological approach to data acquisition, all commercial multienergy CT systems circa 2020 provide dual‐energy data. Material decomposition algorithms are then used to identify specific materials according to their effective atomic number and/or to quantitate mass density. These algorithms are applied to either projection or image data. Since 2006, a number of clinical applications have been developed for commercial release, including those that automatically (a) remove the calcium signal from bony anatomy and/or calcified plaque; (b) create iodine concentration maps from contrast‐enhanced CT data and/or quantify absolute iodine concentration; (c) create virtual non‐contrast‐enhanced images from contrast‐enhanced scans; (d) identify perfused blood volume in lung parenchyma or the myocardium; and (e) characterize materials according to their elemental compositions, which can allow in vivo differentiation between uric acid and non‐uric acid urinary stones or uric acid (gout) or non‐uric acid (calcium pyrophosphate) deposits in articulating joints and surrounding tissues. In this report, the underlying physical principles of multienergy CT are reviewed and each of the current technical approaches are described. In addition, current and evolving clinical applications are introduced. Finally, the impact of multienergy CT technology on patient radiation dose is summarized.