Diagnostic Efficacy of Dynamic Maneuver in Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Compared With Conventional Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography in Imaging the Neck Region
Sanjaykanth B,Ajina Sam,Dhivya Gunasekaran,Yuvaraj Muralidharan,Paarthipan Natarajan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.65074
2024-07-22
Cureus
Abstract:Introduction Dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography (DCE-CT) and conventional contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) are widely used to evaluate neck lesions, including lymph node metastases, thyroid nodules, salivary gland tumors, and other soft tissue masses. DCE-CT, which captures multiple phases of contrast enhancement over time, is hypothesized to provide superior diagnostic accuracy compared to the single-phase images obtained by CE-CT due to its ability to offer dynamic information about tissue perfusion, blood volume, and vascular permeability. Methods This retrospective observational diagnostic study included 100 patients who underwent neck imaging, divided equally into DCE-CT and CE-CT groups. Patient demographics (age, gender, body mass index) and lesion characteristics (type, location, size, enhancement pattern, margins) were recorded. Diagnostic performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value) were evaluated alongside inter-observer variability using the kappa statistic. Clinical impact was assessed based on changes in treatment plans and improvements in patient outcomes. The radiation dose for each modality was documented. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) with chi-square tests for categorical variables and t-tests for continuous variables. Results The study included 58 males and 42 females with a mean age of 55.5 years. A total of 145 lesions were detected: 75 by DCE-CT and 70 by CE-CT. DCE-CT demonstrated higher sensitivity (93.33%) and specificity (96.00%) compared to CE-CT (sensitivity 86.67%, specificity 92.00%). The accuracy of DCE-CT was 94.00% versus 88.00% for CE-CT. Inter-observer agreement was higher for DCE-CT (kappa = 0.85) compared to CE-CT (kappa = 0.80). DCE-CT led to treatment plan changes in 40% of cases and resulted in a 75% improvement in outcomes compared to 25% and 60%, respectively, for CE-CT. The mean radiation dose was slightly higher for DCE-CT (8.5 mSv) compared to CE-CT (7.0 mSv). Conclusion DCE-CT offers superior diagnostic efficacy compared to CE-CT for imaging neck lesions with enhanced sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Its ability to capture multiple phases of contrast enhancement allows for detailed lesion characterization and provides crucial quantitative data on tissue perfusion and blood volume. These benefits lead to more frequent improvements in patient outcomes and changes in treatment plans. Despite the slightly higher radiation dose, the diagnostic advantages of DCE-CT outweigh the disadvantages, particularly in complex cases requiring detailed lesion analysis. Further prospective studies are recommended to validate these findings and explore the broader clinical benefits of DCE-CT.