Zhang, Da

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.

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BI-ALCL) is a rare T-cell lymphoma that arises around breast implants. Most patients manifest with periprosthetic effusion, whereas a subset of patients develops a tumor mass or lymph node involvement (LNI). The aim of this study is to describe the pathologic features of lymph nodes from patients with BI-ALCL and assess the prognostic impact of LNI. Clinical findings and histopathologic features of lymph nodes were assessed in 70 patients with BI-ALCL. LNI was defined by the histologic demonstration of ALCL in lymph nodes. Fourteen (20%) patients with BI-ALCL had LNI, all lymph nodes involved were regional, the most frequent were axillary (93%). The pattern of involvement was sinusoidal in 13 (92.9%) cases, often associated with perifollicular, interfollicular, and diffuse patterns. Two cases had Hodgkin-like patterns. The 5-year overall survival was 75% for patients with LNI and 97.9% for patients without LNI at presentation (P=0.003). Six of 49 (12.2%) of patients with tumor confined by the capsule had LNI, compared with LNI in 8/21 (38%) patients with tumor beyond the capsule. Most patients with LNI achieved complete remission after various therapeutic approaches. Two of 14 (14.3%) patients with LNI died of disease compared with 0/56 (0%) patients without LNI. Twenty percent of patients with BI-ALCL had LNI by lymphoma, most often in a sinusoidal pattern. We conclude that BI-ALCL beyond capsule is associated with a higher risk of LNI. Involvement of lymph nodes was associated with decreased overall survival. Misdiagnosis as Hodgkin lymphoma is a pitfall.