Retrospective study demonstrates 100% visualization of normal carotid bodies using photon-counting CT in angiography patients, indicating potential to reduce misdiagnosis as early paraganglioma.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The carotid bodies are small chemoreceptor organs at the carotid bifurcation. Their depiction on conventional CT angiography is inconsistent, with reported detection rates on energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT) of 62% to 91%. This study evaluates whether photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT) improves carotid body visualization and describes their normal imaging appearance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 37 patients who underwent both PCD-CT and EID-CT head and neck angiography, yielding 74 carotid bifurcations. Two neuroradiologists, reading in consensus, recorded whether each carotid body was definitively identifiable on each modality and rated relative image quality on a 5-point comparative Likert scale. Morphologic measurements were obtained from PCD-CT. Likert scores were analyzed with a linear mixed-effects model with a random intercept for patient; identification was compared with the McNemar test. RESULTS: Reader preference strongly favored PCD-CT (median Likert score, 5.0 [IQR, 4.0-5.0]; mixed-effects mean, 4.6; 95% CI, 4.4-4.8; P < .001). Carotid bodies were identified in all 74 bifurcations (100%) on PCD-CT versus 58 of 74 (78.4%) on EID-CT (P < .001); at least one was missed on EID-CT in 12 of 37 patients (32%). Carotid bodies were ellipsoid in 71 of 74 (95.9%), with mean anteroposterior, transverse, and superoinferior dimensions of 2.0 ± 0.7, 2.1 ± 0.7, and 2.9 ± 1.1 mm, and a median volume of 5.9 mm³ (IQR, 3.8-8.5). CONCLUSIONS: PCD-CT reliably visualizes normal carotid bodies that are frequently missed on conventional EID-CT. Familiarity with their normative appearance may reduce mischaracterization as early paraganglioma and provides a foundation for volumetric research into the carotid body's role in systemic disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
LaVere et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: