Analysis of Window Width and Window Level Variation on Anatomical Information of Abdominal CT scan in Cases of Intra-Abdominal Mass Using Siemens 16 Slice Device
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22487/f6pazn04Keywords:
Abdominal CT scan, Intra-Abdominal Mass, Window Width, Window LevelAbstract
Background: Optimal adjustment of window width (WW) and window level (WL) is essential for improving anatomical visualization on abdominal CT scans in patients with intra-abdominal masses. Objective: To analyze the effects of different WW and WL settings on abdominal CT images and determine the optimal values for evaluating intra-abdominal mass cases. Methods: This quantitative observational study analyzed abdominal CT scans from six patients with radiologist-confirmed intra-abdominal masses. Images were reconstructed using different WW and WL combinations, and three experienced observers independently assessed the resulting anatomical information to identify the most appropriate image settings. Results: Significant differences were observed in the anatomical information produced by the various WW and WL settings. The combination of WW 300 HU and WL 60 HU provided superior visualization of abdominal anatomical structures and lesion characteristics compared with the other settings evaluated. These parameters consistently yielded clearer image contrast and improved diagnostic interpretation across the observers. Conclusion: Variations in WW and WL significantly influence the diagnostic quality of abdominal CT images in patients with intra-abdominal masses. A setting of WW 300 HU and WL 60 HU is recommended as the optimal protocol for enhancing anatomical visualization and supporting accurate radiological assessment in routine clinical practice.
Downloads
References
1. Seeram E. Computed Tomography: Physical Principles, Clinical Applications, and Quality Control. 4th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2016.
2. Hounsfield GN. Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography): Part 1. Description of system. Br J Radiol. 1973;46(552):1016-1022. doi:10.1259/0007-1285-46-552-1016
3. Kumar V, Abbas AK, Aster JC. Robbins and Cotran Pathologic Basis of Disease. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2021.
4. Netter FH. Atlas of Human Anatomy. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2019.
5. Zhao T, Cao K, Yao J, et al. 3D graph anatomy geometry-integrated network for pancreatic mass segmentation, diagnosis, and quantitative patient management. Proc IEEE Comput Soc Conf Comput Vis Pattern Recognit. 2021:13738-13747. doi:10.1109/CVPR46437.2021.01353
6. Bae KT. Intravenous contrast medium administration and scan timing at CT: considerations and approaches. Radiology. 2010;256(1):32-61. doi:10.1148/radiol.10090908
7. Smithuis R. CT contrast injection and protocols. The Radiology Assistant. Published 2018. Accessed 2026.
8. American College of Radiology. ACR Manual on Contrast Media. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2024.
9. American College of Radiology. ACR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance of Computed Tomography (CT) of the Abdomen and Computed Tomography (CT) of the Pelvis. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2021.
10. Berland LL. Practical CT: Technology and Techniques. New York: Raven Press; 2015.
11. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(22):2277-2284. doi:10.1056/NEJMra072149
12. McCollough CH, Primak AN, Braun N, Kofler J, Yu L, Christner J. Strategies for reducing radiation dose in CT. Radiol Clin North Am. 2009;47(1):27-40. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2008.10.006
13. Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM, Boone JM. The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.
14. Hsieh J. Computed Tomography: Principles, Design, Artifacts, and Recent Advances. 3rd ed. Bellingham, WA: SPIE Press; 2015.
15. Romans LE. Computed Tomography for Technologists: A Comprehensive Text. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2019.
16. Goldman LW. Principles of CT and CT technology. J Nucl Med Technol. 2007;35(3):115-128. doi:10.2967/jnmt.107.042978
17. Kalender WA. Computed Tomography: Fundamentals, System Technology, Image Quality, Applications. 3rd ed. Erlangen: Publicis Publishing; 2011.
18. Barrett JF, Keat N. Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics. 2004;24(6):1679-1691. doi:10.1148/rg.246045065
19. Long BW, Rollins JH, Smith BJ. Merrill’s Atlas of Radiographic Positioning and Procedures. 14th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2023.
20. Bontrager KL, Lampignano JP. Textbook of Radiographic Positioning and Related Anatomy. 9th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2018.
21. Wijokongko S. Protokol Radiologi CT Scan dan MRI. Yogyakarta: Inti Medika Pustaka; 2017.
22. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20(1):37-46. doi:10.1177/001316446002000104
23. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-174. doi:10.2307/2529310
24. Friedman M. The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. J Am Stat Assoc. 1937;32(200):675-701. doi:10.1080/01621459.1937.10503522
25. Siegel S, Castellan NJ. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1988.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Faisal Muhammad, Nurbaiti Nurbaiti, Wahyu Hidayat, Eka Putra Syarif Hidayat, Sriyatun Sriyatun
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
