Volume rendering versus maximum intensity projection in CT angiography: what works best, when, and why
The introduction and widespread availability of 16-section multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) technology and, more recently, 64-section scanners, has greatly advanced the role of CT angiography in clinical practice. CT angiography has become a key component of state-of-the-art imaging, wit...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Radiographics 2006-05, Vol.26 (3), p.905-922 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 922 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 905 |
container_title | Radiographics |
container_volume | 26 |
creator | Fishman, Elliot K Ney, Derek R Heath, David G Corl, Frank M Horton, Karen M Johnson, Pamela T |
description | The introduction and widespread availability of 16-section multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) technology and, more recently, 64-section scanners, has greatly advanced the role of CT angiography in clinical practice. CT angiography has become a key component of state-of-the-art imaging, with applications ranging from oncology (eg, staging of pancreatic or renal cancer) to classic vascular imaging (eg, evaluation of aortic aneurysms and renal artery stenoses) as well as newer techniques such as coronary artery imaging and peripheral runoff studies. With an average of 400-1000 images in each volume data set, three-dimensional postprocessing is crucial to volume visualization. Radiologists now have workstations that provide capabilities for evaluation of these data sets by using a range of software programs and processing tools. Although different systems have unique capabilities and functionality, all provide the options of volume rendering and maximum intensity projection for image display and analysis. These two postprocessing techniques have different advantages and disadvantages when used in clinical practice, and it is important that radiologists understand when and how each technique should be used. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1148/rg.263055186 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67979548</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>19445978</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p170t-f659c12a5097e55e1bef755054f915e1eb3e7fdc7a1a0b82f0f64fa0ab748d233</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkL1PwzAUxC0EoqWwMSNPTE3xZ5ywoYovqRJLYY2c5Dl1SZxiJ5T89wRRZqZ7d_rp6XQIXVKyoFQkN75asJgTKWkSH6EplUxFlDN-jKaEKRpJzvkEnYWwJYQKmcSnaEJjRZiI2RSZt7buG8AeXAneugp_gg99wI3-sk3fYOs6cMF2A975dgtFZ1s3hni5xtpVtq283m2GW7zf6A7vW_8ecA6hm48BuPnIlOM1nKMTo-sAFwedodeH-_XyKVq9PD4v71bRjirSRSaWaUGZliRVICXQHIySkkhhUjpayDkoUxZKU03yhBliYmE00bkSSck4n6Hr379j2Y9-7JE1NhRQ19pB24csVqlKpUj-BWkqhEzVD3h1APu8gTLbedtoP2R_E_JvY0pz2g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>19445978</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Volume rendering versus maximum intensity projection in CT angiography: what works best, when, and why</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Fishman, Elliot K ; Ney, Derek R ; Heath, David G ; Corl, Frank M ; Horton, Karen M ; Johnson, Pamela T</creator><creatorcontrib>Fishman, Elliot K ; Ney, Derek R ; Heath, David G ; Corl, Frank M ; Horton, Karen M ; Johnson, Pamela T</creatorcontrib><description>The introduction and widespread availability of 16-section multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) technology and, more recently, 64-section scanners, has greatly advanced the role of CT angiography in clinical practice. CT angiography has become a key component of state-of-the-art imaging, with applications ranging from oncology (eg, staging of pancreatic or renal cancer) to classic vascular imaging (eg, evaluation of aortic aneurysms and renal artery stenoses) as well as newer techniques such as coronary artery imaging and peripheral runoff studies. With an average of 400-1000 images in each volume data set, three-dimensional postprocessing is crucial to volume visualization. Radiologists now have workstations that provide capabilities for evaluation of these data sets by using a range of software programs and processing tools. Although different systems have unique capabilities and functionality, all provide the options of volume rendering and maximum intensity projection for image display and analysis. These two postprocessing techniques have different advantages and disadvantages when used in clinical practice, and it is important that radiologists understand when and how each technique should be used.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0271-5333</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1527-1323</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1148/rg.263055186</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16702462</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Coronary Angiography - instrumentation ; Coronary Angiography - methods ; Humans ; Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Radiographic Image Enhancement - instrumentation ; Radiographic Image Enhancement - methods ; Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - instrumentation ; Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><ispartof>Radiographics, 2006-05, Vol.26 (3), p.905-922</ispartof><rights>Copyright RSNA, 2006.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16702462$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fishman, Elliot K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ney, Derek R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heath, David G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Corl, Frank M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horton, Karen M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Pamela T</creatorcontrib><title>Volume rendering versus maximum intensity projection in CT angiography: what works best, when, and why</title><title>Radiographics</title><addtitle>Radiographics</addtitle><description>The introduction and widespread availability of 16-section multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) technology and, more recently, 64-section scanners, has greatly advanced the role of CT angiography in clinical practice. CT angiography has become a key component of state-of-the-art imaging, with applications ranging from oncology (eg, staging of pancreatic or renal cancer) to classic vascular imaging (eg, evaluation of aortic aneurysms and renal artery stenoses) as well as newer techniques such as coronary artery imaging and peripheral runoff studies. With an average of 400-1000 images in each volume data set, three-dimensional postprocessing is crucial to volume visualization. Radiologists now have workstations that provide capabilities for evaluation of these data sets by using a range of software programs and processing tools. Although different systems have unique capabilities and functionality, all provide the options of volume rendering and maximum intensity projection for image display and analysis. These two postprocessing techniques have different advantages and disadvantages when used in clinical practice, and it is important that radiologists understand when and how each technique should be used.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Coronary Angiography - instrumentation</subject><subject>Coronary Angiography - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods</subject><subject>Practice Guidelines as Topic</subject><subject>Radiographic Image Enhancement - instrumentation</subject><subject>Radiographic Image Enhancement - methods</subject><subject>Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - instrumentation</subject><subject>Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><issn>0271-5333</issn><issn>1527-1323</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkL1PwzAUxC0EoqWwMSNPTE3xZ5ywoYovqRJLYY2c5Dl1SZxiJ5T89wRRZqZ7d_rp6XQIXVKyoFQkN75asJgTKWkSH6EplUxFlDN-jKaEKRpJzvkEnYWwJYQKmcSnaEJjRZiI2RSZt7buG8AeXAneugp_gg99wI3-sk3fYOs6cMF2A975dgtFZ1s3hni5xtpVtq283m2GW7zf6A7vW_8ecA6hm48BuPnIlOM1nKMTo-sAFwedodeH-_XyKVq9PD4v71bRjirSRSaWaUGZliRVICXQHIySkkhhUjpayDkoUxZKU03yhBliYmE00bkSSck4n6Hr379j2Y9-7JE1NhRQ19pB24csVqlKpUj-BWkqhEzVD3h1APu8gTLbedtoP2R_E_JvY0pz2g</recordid><startdate>200605</startdate><enddate>200605</enddate><creator>Fishman, Elliot K</creator><creator>Ney, Derek R</creator><creator>Heath, David G</creator><creator>Corl, Frank M</creator><creator>Horton, Karen M</creator><creator>Johnson, Pamela T</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200605</creationdate><title>Volume rendering versus maximum intensity projection in CT angiography: what works best, when, and why</title><author>Fishman, Elliot K ; Ney, Derek R ; Heath, David G ; Corl, Frank M ; Horton, Karen M ; Johnson, Pamela T</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p170t-f659c12a5097e55e1bef755054f915e1eb3e7fdc7a1a0b82f0f64fa0ab748d233</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Coronary Angiography - instrumentation</topic><topic>Coronary Angiography - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods</topic><topic>Practice Guidelines as Topic</topic><topic>Radiographic Image Enhancement - instrumentation</topic><topic>Radiographic Image Enhancement - methods</topic><topic>Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - instrumentation</topic><topic>Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fishman, Elliot K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ney, Derek R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heath, David G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Corl, Frank M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horton, Karen M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Pamela T</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Radiographics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fishman, Elliot K</au><au>Ney, Derek R</au><au>Heath, David G</au><au>Corl, Frank M</au><au>Horton, Karen M</au><au>Johnson, Pamela T</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Volume rendering versus maximum intensity projection in CT angiography: what works best, when, and why</atitle><jtitle>Radiographics</jtitle><addtitle>Radiographics</addtitle><date>2006-05</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>905</spage><epage>922</epage><pages>905-922</pages><issn>0271-5333</issn><eissn>1527-1323</eissn><abstract>The introduction and widespread availability of 16-section multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) technology and, more recently, 64-section scanners, has greatly advanced the role of CT angiography in clinical practice. CT angiography has become a key component of state-of-the-art imaging, with applications ranging from oncology (eg, staging of pancreatic or renal cancer) to classic vascular imaging (eg, evaluation of aortic aneurysms and renal artery stenoses) as well as newer techniques such as coronary artery imaging and peripheral runoff studies. With an average of 400-1000 images in each volume data set, three-dimensional postprocessing is crucial to volume visualization. Radiologists now have workstations that provide capabilities for evaluation of these data sets by using a range of software programs and processing tools. Although different systems have unique capabilities and functionality, all provide the options of volume rendering and maximum intensity projection for image display and analysis. These two postprocessing techniques have different advantages and disadvantages when used in clinical practice, and it is important that radiologists understand when and how each technique should be used.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>16702462</pmid><doi>10.1148/rg.263055186</doi><tpages>18</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0271-5333 |
ispartof | Radiographics, 2006-05, Vol.26 (3), p.905-922 |
issn | 0271-5333 1527-1323 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67979548 |
source | MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Algorithms Coronary Angiography - instrumentation Coronary Angiography - methods Humans Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods Practice Guidelines as Topic Radiographic Image Enhancement - instrumentation Radiographic Image Enhancement - methods Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - instrumentation Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods Reproducibility of Results Sensitivity and Specificity |
title | Volume rendering versus maximum intensity projection in CT angiography: what works best, when, and why |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T10%3A48%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Volume%20rendering%20versus%20maximum%20intensity%20projection%20in%20CT%20angiography:%20what%20works%20best,%20when,%20and%20why&rft.jtitle=Radiographics&rft.au=Fishman,%20Elliot%20K&rft.date=2006-05&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=905&rft.epage=922&rft.pages=905-922&rft.issn=0271-5333&rft.eissn=1527-1323&rft_id=info:doi/10.1148/rg.263055186&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E19445978%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=19445978&rft_id=info:pmid/16702462&rfr_iscdi=true |