Evidence Hub

Simple cystic lesions of the pancreas: image quality and diagnostic accuracy of photon-counting detector computed tomography

Rau S, Stein T, Rau A, Wilpert C, Pallasch F, Bogner B, Faby S, Bamberg F et al.

La Radiologia medica, 2025

106 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate image quality and diagnostic accuracy of photon-counting detector (PCD) CT for the detection of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) compared to energy-integrating detector (EID) CT with MRI serving as reference standard.

Material and methods: We included consecutive patients who underwent contrast-enhanced PCD-CT of the abdomen and for whom an additional abdominal EID-CT was available. Multiparametric MRI served as the reference standard. CT images were assessed for the presence of PCLs by three radiologists independently in a blinded reading. Image quality, lesion conspicuity, and diagnostic confidence were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (5 = excellent). The coefficient of variation (CV) and the density difference between PCLs and visually normal pancreatic parenchyma were calculated as quantitative imaging measures. Radiation dose was assessed using CTDIvol [mGy].

Results: Among 106 included patients (age 62.7 ± 12.6 years; 45 [42.5%] male), 46 had MRI-confirmed cystic lesions (mean size 8.7 ± 7.4 mm; range 2-45 mm). Diagnostic accuracy for PCLs was significantly higher for PCD-CT vs. EID-CT (area under the curve: 0.81 vs. 0.74; p = 0.002; sensitivity: 76.8% vs. 59.4%). Image quality, lesion conspicuity, and diagnostic confidence were rated superior for PCD-CT vs. EID-CT (all p < 0.001). Quantitative analyses revealed a significantly lower CV (0.19 vs. 0.24; p = 0.002) and a higher density difference (94.1 HU vs. 76.6 HU p < 0.001) between PCLs and…

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: 106 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