Evidence Hub

Lesion conspicuity assessment of prone 40-keV virtual monoenergetic imaging in arterial-phase photon-counting CT for breast cancer: a retrospective comparison with DCE-MRI

Kawasaki Y, Nakajima M, Yokoyama K, Yamaga E, Kato M, Katsuta L, Yamagiwa K, Hada H et al.

Japanese journal of radiology, 2026

22 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Purpose: This study investigated whether contrast enhanced whole-body photon-counting detector (PCD)-CT performed for staging in the prone position can provide breast lesion conspicuity comparable to dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging (DCE-T1WI).

Methods: This single-center, retrospective diagnostic feasibility study included 22 women with surgically confirmed primary breast cancer who underwent preoperative prone PCD-CT and DCE-MRI. Then, 40- and 70-keV virtual monoenergetic image (VMI) from a single arterial-phase PCD-CT acquisition were reconstructed. Three readers independently evaluated 40- and 70-keV VMI and DCE-T1WI. The primary endpoint was lesion conspicuity. The secondary endpoints included, size error, detection rate, background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), subjective noise, and reading time.

Results: Lesion conspicuity was highest on 40-keV VMI, which outperformed 70-keV VMI and DCE-T1WI. Absolute size error was numerically larger for 40-keV VMI than for DCE-T1WI, but this difference was not statistically significant. Directional error indicated that 40-keV VMI significantly underestimated lesion size relative to DCE-T1WI. Detection rates showed an overall difference among modalities, but pairwise differences were not statistically significant. Further, 40-keV VMI had a higher BPE and a greater perceived noise than 70-keV VMI, and it required a longer reading time than DCE-T1WI. The radiation dose did not differ between VMI energy levels as both were…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 22 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free