Clinical Radiology
Volume 65, Issue 3 , Pages 193-197, March 2010

Optimal reconstructed section thickness for the detection of liver lesions with multidetector CT

Diagnostic Imaging, Southern Health, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia

Received 4 June 2009; received in revised form 24 September 2009; accepted 18 October 2009.

Aim

To evaluate the impact of different reconstructed section thicknesses on liver lesion detection using multidetector computed tomography (CT).

Methods

Fifty-three patients were examined using a 16-section CT machine with axial reconstructions provided at 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10mm section thicknesses. Images of different reconstructed section thicknesses from different patients were presented in random order to three independent, blinded radiologists for review at multiple sessions. All images were then reviewed by three radiologists in a common session. Consensus was reached following review of the previous interpretation results and results of follow-up imaging regarding the number of true liver lesions (n=101) for comparison.

Results

Mean detection rates were as follows: 93/101 lesions detected with the 2.5mm section thickness, 98/101 lesions detected at the 5mm section thickness, 78/101 lesions detected at the 7.5mm section thickness, and 54/101 lesions detected at the 10mm section thickness. Lesions missed at the 2.5mm section thickness were due to masking by image noise. There was particular difficulty detecting subcapsular lesions and lesions adjacent to fissures or the gall bladder at the 7.5mm and 10mm section thicknesses.

Conclusion

The optimal reconstructed section thickness for lesion detection in the liver was 5mm.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0009-9260(09)00391-2

doi:10.1016/j.crad.2009.10.009

Clinical Radiology
Volume 65, Issue 3 , Pages 193-197, March 2010