Dual-energy CT applications on liver imaging: what radiologists and radiographers should know? A systematic review.

Abstract

This review aims to provide a comprehensive summary of DECT techniques, acquisition workflows, and post-processing methods. By doing so, we aim to elucidate the advantages and disadvantages of DECT compared to conventional single-energy CT imaging. A systematic search was conducted on MEDLINE/EMBASE for DECT studies in liver imaging published between 1980 and 2024. Information regarding study design and endpoints, patient characteristics, DECT technical parameters, radiation dose, iodinated contrast agent (ICA) administration and postprocessing methods were extracted. Technical parameters, including DECT phase, field of view, pitch, collimation, rotation time, arterial phase timing (from injection), and venous timing (from injection) from the included studies were reported, along with formal narrative synthesis of main DECT applications for liver imaging. Out of the initially identified 234 articles, 153 met the inclusion criteria. Extensive variability in acquisition parameters was observed, except for tube voltage (80/140 kVp combination reported in 50% of articles) and ICA administration (1.5mL/kg at 3-4mL/s, reported in 91% of articles). Radiation dose information was provided in only 40% of articles (range: 6-80mGy), and virtual non-contrast imaging (VNC) emerged as a common strategy to reduce the radiation dose. The primary application of DECT post-processed images was in detecting focal liver lesions (47% of articles), with predominance of study focusing on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (27%). Furthermore, a significant proportion of the articles (16%) focused on enhancing DECT protocols, while 15% explored metastasis detection. Our review recommends using 80/140 kVp tube voltage with 1.5mL/kg ICA at 3-4mL/s flow rate. Post-processing should include low keV-VMI for enhanced lesion detection, IMs for tumor iodine content evaluation, and VNC for dose reduction. However, heterogeneous literature hinders protocol standardization.