CT Hounsfield numbers of soft tissues on unenhanced abdominal CT scans: variability between two different manufacturers' MDCT scanners

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

48 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine whether Hounsfield numbers of soft tissues on unenhanced abdominal CT of the same patient vary on repeat scans done on two different manufacturers' MDCT scanners.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A database search was performed to identify patients older than 18 years who underwent unenhanced CT of the abdomen and pelvis performed both on a Volume CT (GE Healthcare) and a Definition AS Plus (Siemens Healthcare) 64-MDCT scanner within 12 months of each other. After excluding those patients for whom Hounsfield unit measurements would be affected by mitigating factors, 48 patients (mean age, 58.8 years) were identified. Hounsfield unit measurements were obtained in nine different soft-tissue anatomic locations on each scan, and the location of these sites was kept identical on each scan pair. Data were analyzed to evaluate Hounsfield unit differences between these scanners.

RESULTS: In general, there was a low consistency in the Hounsfield unit measurements for each of these sites on scans obtained by the two scanners, with the subcutaneous fat in the left posterolateral flank showing the lowest correlation (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.198). There were differences in the Hounsfield unit measurements obtained in all anatomic sites on scans obtained by both scanners. Mean Hounsfield unit measurements obtained on the Definition AS Plus scanner were lower than those obtained on the Volume CT scanner, with the intriguing exception of the anterior midline subcutaneous fat Hounsfield unit measurements, which were higher on the Definition AS Plus scanner. All differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Hounsfield unit measurements for unenhanced abdominal soft tissues of the same patient vary between scanners of two common MDCT manufacturers.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1013-1020
Number of pages8
JournalAJR. American journal of roentgenology
Volume203
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2014

Fingerprint

Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Subcutaneous Fat
Delivery of Health Care
Pelvis
Abdomen
Databases

Keywords

  • Hounsfield numbers
  • MDCT

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

@article{a8a1c648bf0a4049ae83cff34c33b451,
title = "CT Hounsfield numbers of soft tissues on unenhanced abdominal CT scans: variability between two different manufacturers' MDCT scanners",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine whether Hounsfield numbers of soft tissues on unenhanced abdominal CT of the same patient vary on repeat scans done on two different manufacturers' MDCT scanners.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A database search was performed to identify patients older than 18 years who underwent unenhanced CT of the abdomen and pelvis performed both on a Volume CT (GE Healthcare) and a Definition AS Plus (Siemens Healthcare) 64-MDCT scanner within 12 months of each other. After excluding those patients for whom Hounsfield unit measurements would be affected by mitigating factors, 48 patients (mean age, 58.8 years) were identified. Hounsfield unit measurements were obtained in nine different soft-tissue anatomic locations on each scan, and the location of these sites was kept identical on each scan pair. Data were analyzed to evaluate Hounsfield unit differences between these scanners.RESULTS: In general, there was a low consistency in the Hounsfield unit measurements for each of these sites on scans obtained by the two scanners, with the subcutaneous fat in the left posterolateral flank showing the lowest correlation (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.198). There were differences in the Hounsfield unit measurements obtained in all anatomic sites on scans obtained by both scanners. Mean Hounsfield unit measurements obtained on the Definition AS Plus scanner were lower than those obtained on the Volume CT scanner, with the intriguing exception of the anterior midline subcutaneous fat Hounsfield unit measurements, which were higher on the Definition AS Plus scanner. All differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05).CONCLUSION: Hounsfield unit measurements for unenhanced abdominal soft tissues of the same patient vary between scanners of two common MDCT manufacturers.",
keywords = "Hounsfield numbers, MDCT",
author = "Ramit Lamba and McGahan, {John P} and Corwin, {Michael T} and Chin-Shang Li and Tien Tran and Seibert, {J Anthony} and Boone, {John M}",
year = "2014",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2214/AJR.12.10037",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "203",
pages = "1013--1020",
journal = "American Journal of Roentgenology",
issn = "0361-803X",
publisher = "American Roentgen Ray Society",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - CT Hounsfield numbers of soft tissues on unenhanced abdominal CT scans

T2 - variability between two different manufacturers' MDCT scanners

AU - Lamba, Ramit

AU - McGahan, John P

AU - Corwin, Michael T

AU - Li, Chin-Shang

AU - Tran, Tien

AU - Seibert, J Anthony

AU - Boone, John M

PY - 2014/11/1

Y1 - 2014/11/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine whether Hounsfield numbers of soft tissues on unenhanced abdominal CT of the same patient vary on repeat scans done on two different manufacturers' MDCT scanners.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A database search was performed to identify patients older than 18 years who underwent unenhanced CT of the abdomen and pelvis performed both on a Volume CT (GE Healthcare) and a Definition AS Plus (Siemens Healthcare) 64-MDCT scanner within 12 months of each other. After excluding those patients for whom Hounsfield unit measurements would be affected by mitigating factors, 48 patients (mean age, 58.8 years) were identified. Hounsfield unit measurements were obtained in nine different soft-tissue anatomic locations on each scan, and the location of these sites was kept identical on each scan pair. Data were analyzed to evaluate Hounsfield unit differences between these scanners.RESULTS: In general, there was a low consistency in the Hounsfield unit measurements for each of these sites on scans obtained by the two scanners, with the subcutaneous fat in the left posterolateral flank showing the lowest correlation (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.198). There were differences in the Hounsfield unit measurements obtained in all anatomic sites on scans obtained by both scanners. Mean Hounsfield unit measurements obtained on the Definition AS Plus scanner were lower than those obtained on the Volume CT scanner, with the intriguing exception of the anterior midline subcutaneous fat Hounsfield unit measurements, which were higher on the Definition AS Plus scanner. All differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05).CONCLUSION: Hounsfield unit measurements for unenhanced abdominal soft tissues of the same patient vary between scanners of two common MDCT manufacturers.

AB - OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine whether Hounsfield numbers of soft tissues on unenhanced abdominal CT of the same patient vary on repeat scans done on two different manufacturers' MDCT scanners.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A database search was performed to identify patients older than 18 years who underwent unenhanced CT of the abdomen and pelvis performed both on a Volume CT (GE Healthcare) and a Definition AS Plus (Siemens Healthcare) 64-MDCT scanner within 12 months of each other. After excluding those patients for whom Hounsfield unit measurements would be affected by mitigating factors, 48 patients (mean age, 58.8 years) were identified. Hounsfield unit measurements were obtained in nine different soft-tissue anatomic locations on each scan, and the location of these sites was kept identical on each scan pair. Data were analyzed to evaluate Hounsfield unit differences between these scanners.RESULTS: In general, there was a low consistency in the Hounsfield unit measurements for each of these sites on scans obtained by the two scanners, with the subcutaneous fat in the left posterolateral flank showing the lowest correlation (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.198). There were differences in the Hounsfield unit measurements obtained in all anatomic sites on scans obtained by both scanners. Mean Hounsfield unit measurements obtained on the Definition AS Plus scanner were lower than those obtained on the Volume CT scanner, with the intriguing exception of the anterior midline subcutaneous fat Hounsfield unit measurements, which were higher on the Definition AS Plus scanner. All differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05).CONCLUSION: Hounsfield unit measurements for unenhanced abdominal soft tissues of the same patient vary between scanners of two common MDCT manufacturers.

KW - Hounsfield numbers

KW - MDCT

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84924931201&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84924931201&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2214/AJR.12.10037

DO - 10.2214/AJR.12.10037

M3 - Article

C2 - 25341139

AN - SCOPUS:84924931201

VL - 203

SP - 1013

EP - 1020

JO - American Journal of Roentgenology

JF - American Journal of Roentgenology

SN - 0361-803X

IS - 5

ER -