Virtual Unenhanced Images: Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison Between Different Dual-Energy CT Scanners in a Patient and Phantom Study.

The aim of this study was to compare qualitative and quantitative metrics of virtual unenhanced (VUE) images among dual-source dual-energy computed tomography (dsDECT), rapid kV-switching DECT (rsDECT), and dual-layer detector DECT (dlDECT) using patient and phantom data. MATERIALS AND METHODS Forty-four patients with clinical contrast-enhanced abdominal examinations on each of the 3 DECT scanner types and a phantom scanned with the same protocols were included in this retrospective study. Qualitative and quantitative assessment was performed on VUE images. Quantitative evaluation included measurement of attenuation and image noise for various tissues and the phantom. Virtual unenhanced image attenuation and noise were compared between scanner types, and intrapatient interscanner reproducibility of virtual unenhanced image attenuation was calculated as the percentage of measurement pairs with an interscanner difference ≤ 10 HU. Image quality, noise, sharpness, and iodine elimination were assessed qualitatively by 2 radiologists. RESULTS Significant interscanner differences in VUE attenuation and noise were found in all tissues. dlDECT and rsDECT showed significantly higher VUE attenuation than dsDECT in the aorta, portal vein, and kidneys (P < 0.05). Conversely, VUE attenuation in dsDECT was significantly higher than in dlDECT/rsDECT for subcutaneous and retroperitoneal fat (both P < 0.05). A total of 91.9% (385/419) of measurements were reproducible between rsDECT and dlDECT, 70.9% (297/419) between dsDECT and rsDECT, and 66.8% (280/419) between dsDECT and dlDECT. Virtual unenhanced image attenuation in the contrast media-filled phantom cavity was 12.7 ± 4.7 HU in dlDECT, -5.3 ± 4.2 HU in rsDECT, and -4.0 ± 10.7 HU in dsDECT with significant differences between dlDECT and rsDECT/dsDECT, respectively (P < 0.05), between which attenuation was comparable in the unenhanced extraluminal phantom component (P = 0.11-0.62). Qualitatively, dsDECT yielded best iodine elimination, whereas sharpness, image noise, and overall image quality were rated higher in dlDECT and rsDECT. CONCLUSIONS There are significant interscanner differences in the attenuation measurements and qualitative assessment of VUE images, which should be acknowledged when using these images in patients that are being scanned on different DECT scanner types during imaging follow-up.