title: Capability of abdominal 320-detector row CT for small vasculature assessment compared with that of 64-detector row CT.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the capability of 320-detector row CT (area-detector CT: ADCT) with step-and-shoot scan protocol for small abdominal vasculature assessment with that of 64-detector row CT with helical scan protocol.
  
  
  METHODS
  Total of 60 patients underwent contrast-enhanced abdominal CT for preoperative assessment. Of all, 30 suspected to have lung cancer underwent ADCT using step-and-shoot scan protocol. The other 30 suspected to have renal cell carcinoma underwent 64-MDCT using helical scan protocol. Two experienced radiologists independently assessed inferior epigastric, hepatic subsegmental (in the segment 8), mesenteric marginal (Griffith point) and inferior phrenic arteries by using 5-point visual scoring systems. Kappa analysis was used for evaluation of interobserver agreement. To compare the visualization capability of the two systems, the Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare the scores for each of the arteries.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Overall interobserver agreements for both systems were almost perfect (κ>0.80). Visualization scores for inferior epigastric and mesenteric arteries were significantly higher for ADCT than for 64-detector row CT (p<0.05). No significant difference was found for hepatic subsegmental and inferior phrenic arteries.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Small abdominal vasculature assessment by ADCT with step-and-shoot scan protocol is potentially equal to or better than that by 64-detector row CT with helical scan protocol.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, and Kobe University Hospital, 7-5-2, Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo 650-0017, Japan. kitajima@med.kobe-u.ac.jp
authors.forename: Kazuhiro
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Kitajima
authors.forename: Tetsuo
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Maeda
authors.forename: Yoshiharu
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Ohno
authors.forename: Takeshi
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Yoshikawa
authors.forename: Minoru
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Konishi
authors.forename: Tomonori
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Kanda
authors.forename: Yumiko
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Onishi
authors.forename: Keiko
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Matsumoto
authors.forename: Hisanobu
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Koyama
authors.forename: Daisuke
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Takenaka
authors.forename: Kazuro
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Sugimura
mesh_terms: D000005:Abdomen / Q000098:blood supply*; D000368:Aged; D002292:Carcinoma, Renal Cell / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000601:surgery; D003287:Contrast Media; D003937:Diagnosis, Differential; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007479:Iopamidol; D007680:Kidney Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000601:surgery; D008175:Lung Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000601:surgery; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D057234:Preoperative Period; D011860:Radiography, Abdominal / Q000379:methods; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000379:methods*
chemical_list: D003287:Contrast Media; D007479:Iopamidol