Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak ( for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 24, Number 5, 2019

Evaluation of raw-data-based and calculated electron density for contrast media with a dual-energy CT technique

Daisuke Kawahara, Shuichi Ozawa, Kazushi Yokomachi, Toru Higaki, Takehiro Shiinoki, Yoshimi Ohno, Yuji Murakami, Kazuo Awai, Yasushi Nagata


Objectives The aim of the current study is to evaluate the accuracy and the precision of raw-data-based relative electron density (REDraw) and the calibration-based RED (REDcal) at a range of low-RED to high-RED for tissue-equivalent phantom materials by comparing them with reference RED (REDref) and to present the difference of REDraw and REDcal for the contrast medium using dual-energy CT (DECT). Methods The REDraw images were reconstructed by raw-data-based decomposition using DECT. For evaluation of the accuracy of the REDraw, REDref was calculated for the tissue-equivalent phantom materials based on their specified density and elemental composition. The REDcal images were calculated using three models: Lung-Bone model, Lung-Ti model and Lung-Ti (SEMAR) model which used single-energy metal artifact reduction (SEMAR). The difference between REDraw and REDcal was calculated. Results In the titanium rod core, the deviations of REDraw and REDcal (Lung-Bone model, Lung-Ti model and Lung-Ti model with SEMAR) from REDref were 0.45%, 50.8%, 15.4% and 15.0%, respectively. The largest differences between REDraw and REDcal (Lung-Bone model, Lung-Ti model and Lung-Ti model with SEMAR) in the contrast medium phantom were 8.2%, −23.7%, and 28.7%, respectively. However, the differences between REDraw and REDcal values were within 10% at 20 mg/ml. The standard deviation of the REDraw was significantly smaller than the REDcal with three models in the titanium and the materials that had low CT numbers. Conclusion The REDcal values could be affected by beam hardening artifacts and the REDcal was less accurate than REDraw for high-Z materials as titanium. Advances in knowledge The raw-data-based reconstruction method could reduce the beam hardening artifact compared with image-based reconstruction and increase the accuracy for the RED estimation in high-Z materials, such as titanium and iodinated contrast medium.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2019; 24(5) : 499-506

« back


Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.