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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Radiographics 2006-05, Vol.26 (3), p.905-922
Hauptverfasser: Fishman, Elliot K, Ney, Derek R, Heath, David G, Corl, Frank M, Horton, Karen M, Johnson, Pamela T
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