Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Third-generation dual-source CT of the neck using automated tube voltage adaptation in combination with advanced modeled iterative reconstruction: evaluation of image quality and radiation dose

  • Head and Neck
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate image quality and radiation dose in third-generation dual-source computed tomography (DSCT) of the neck using automated tube voltage adaptation (TVA) with advanced modelled iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE) algorithm.

Methods

One hundred and sixteen patients were retrospectively evaluated. Group A (n = 59) was examined on second-generation DSCT with automated TVA and filtered back projection. Group B (n = 57) was examined on a third-generation DSCT with automated TVA and ADMIRE. Age, body diameter, attenuation of several anatomic structures, noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), radiation dose (CTDIvol) and size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) were assessed. Diagnostic acceptability was rated by three readers.

Results

Age (p = 0.87) and body diameter (p = 0.075) did not differ significantly. Tube voltage in Group A was set automatically to 100 kV for all patients (n = 59), and to 70 kV (n = 2), 80 kV (n = 5), and 90 kV (n = 50) in Group B. Noise was reduced and CNR was increased significantly (p < 0.001). Diagnostic acceptability was rated high in both groups, with better ratings in Group B (p < 0.001). SSDE was reduced by 34 % in Group B (20.38 ± 1.63 mGy vs. 13.04 ± 1.50 mGy, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Combination of automated TVA and ADMIRE in neck CT using third-generation DSCT results in a substantial radiation dose reduction with low noise and increased CNR.

Key Points

• Third-generation DSCT provides automated tube voltage adaptation with an increment of 10 kV.

• 10 kV increment optimizes scans to the patient’s neck anatomy.

• TVA combined with ADMIRE significantly lower radiation dose in contrast-enhanced neck CT.

• TVA in combination with ADMIRE reduces noise and increases SNR and CNR.

• Image analysis quoted less noise and better diagnostic acceptability in third-generation DSCT.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ADMIRE:

Advanced modelled iterative reconstruction

AP:

Anterior-posterior

CNR:

Contrast-to-noise ratio

CT:

Computed tomography

CTDIvol :

CT dose index volume

DSCT:

Dual-source computed tomography

HU:

Hounsfield units

ICC:

Intraclass correlation coefficient

IJV:

Internal jugular vein

LAT:

Lateral

ROI:

Region of interest

SD:

Standard deviation

SNR:

Signal-to-noise ratio

SSDE:

Size-specific dose estimates

TCM:

Tube current modulation

TVA:

Tube voltage adaptation

References

  1. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Mahesh M, Kim KP et al (2009) Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 169(22):2071–2077

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brenner DJ (2010) Slowing the increase in the population dose resulting from CT scans. Radiat Res 174(6):809–815

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357(22):2277–2284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT et al (2003) Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100(24):13761–13766

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Odedra D, Blobel J, Alhumayyd S et al (2014) Image noise-based dose adaptation in dynamic volume CT of the heart: dose and image quality optimisation in comparison with BMI-based dose adaptation. Eur Radiol 24(1):86–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Scholtz JE, Kaup M, Husers K et al (2015) Advanced modeled iterative reconstruction in low-tube-voltage contrast-enhanced neck ct: evaluation of objective and subjective image quality. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol

  7. Scholtz JE, Wichmann JL, Husers K et al (2015) Automated Tube Voltage Adaptation in Combination with Advanced Modeled Iterative Reconstruction in Thoracoabdominal Third-Generation 192-Slice Dual-Source Computed Tomography: Effects on Image Quality and Radiation Dose. Acad Radiol 22(9):1081–1087

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Greess H, Wolf H, Baum U et al (2000) Dose reduction in computed tomography by attenuation-based on-line modulation of tube current: evaluation of six anatomical regions. Eur Radiol 10(2):391–394

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kalender WA, Wolf H, Suess C et al (1999) Dose reduction in CT by on-line tube current control: principles and validation on phantoms and cadavers. Eur Radiol 9(2):323–328

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lopez-Rendon X, Bosmans H, Oyen R, Zanca F (2015) Effective dose and organ doses estimation taking tube current modulation into account with a commercial software package. Eur Radiol 25(7):1919–1925

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. May MS, Kramer MR, Eller A et al (2014) Automated tube voltage adaptation in head and neck computed tomography between 120 and 100 kV: effects on image quality and radiation dose. Neuroradiology 56(9):797–803

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Brinkley MF, Ramirez-Giraldo JC, Samei E et al (2015) Effects of automatic tube potential selection on radiation dose index, image quality, and lesion detectability in pediatric abdominopelvic CT and CTA: a phantom study. Eur Radiol

  13. Wichmann JL, Hu X, Kerl JM et al (2015) 70 kVp computed tomography pulmonary angiography: potential for reduction of iodine load and radiation dose. J Thorac Imaging 30(1):69–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Scholtz JE, Husers K, Kaup M et al (2015) Evaluation of image quality and dose reduction of 80 kVp neck computed tomography in patients with suspected peritonsillar abscess. Clin Radiol

  15. Scholtz JE, Kaup M, Kraft J et al (2015) Objective and subjective image quality of primary and recurrent squamous cell carcinoma on head and neck low-tube-voltage 80-kVp computed tomography. Neuroradiology 57(6):645–651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gaddikeri S, Andre JB, Benjert J et al (2015) Impact of Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction on Image Quality of Contrast-Enhanced Neck CT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 36(2):391–396

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Husarik DB, Schindera ST, Morsbach F et al (2014) Combining automated attenuation-based tube voltage selection and iterative reconstruction: a liver phantom study. Eur Radiol 24(3):657–667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Winklehner A, Gordic S, Lauk E et al (2015) Automated attenuation-based tube voltage selection for body CTA: Performance evaluation of 192-slice dual-source CT. Eur Radiol

  19. Yu L, Li H, Fletcher JG, McCollough CH (2010) Automatic selection of tube potential for radiation dose reduction in CT: a general strategy. Med Phys 37(1):234–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Medicine AAoPi (2011) Size Specific Dose Estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations. Report of the AAPM Tasck Group 204, College Park

    Google Scholar 

  21. Eller A, May MS, Scharf M et al (2012) Attenuation-based automatic kilovolt selection in abdominal computed tomography: effects on radiation exposure and image quality. Invest Radiol 47(10):559–565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gnannt R, Winklehner A, Goetti R et al (2012) Low kilovoltage CT of the neck with 70 kVp: comparison with a standard protocol. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33(6):1014–1019

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Goetti R, Leschka S, Baumuller S et al (2010) Low dose high-pitch spiral acquisition 128-slice dual-source computed tomography for the evaluation of coronary artery bypass graft patency. Invest Radiol 45(6):324–330

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hoang JK, Yoshizumi TT, Nguyen G et al (2012) Variation in tube voltage for adult neck MDCT: effect on radiation dose and image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198(3):621–627

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schindera ST, Graca P, Patak MA et al (2009) Thoracoabdominal-aortoiliac multidetector-row CT angiography at 80 and 100 kVp: assessment of image quality and radiation dose. Invest Radiol 44(10):650–655

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wichmann JL, Kraft J, Noske EM et al (2014) Low-tube-voltage 80-kVp neck CT: evaluation of diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 35(12):2376–2381

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bodelle B, Klein E, Naguib NN et al (2014) Acute intracranial hemorrhage in CT: benefits of sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction techniques. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 35(3):445–449

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. May MS, Wust W, Brand M et al (2011) Dose reduction in abdominal computed tomography: intraindividual comparison of image quality of full-dose standard and half-dose iterative reconstructions with dual-source computed tomography. Invest Radiol 46(7):465–470

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Vardhanabhuti V, Riordan RD, Mitchell GR et al (2014) Image comparative assessment using iterative reconstructions: clinical comparison of low-dose abdominal/pelvic computed tomography between adaptive statistical, model-based iterative reconstructions and traditional filtered back projection in 65 patients. Invest Radiol 49(4):209–216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gordic S, Desbiolles L, Stolzmann P et al (2014) Advanced modelled iterative reconstruction for abdominal CT: qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Clin Radiol 69(12):e497–e504

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Jan-Erik Scholtz. The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Ralf W. Bauer is on the speakers’ bureau of Siemens Healthcare, Computed Tomography division. The author did not analyze or control any data in this study. All other authors have nothing to disclose. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. The authors have significant statistical expertise. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. No study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported. Methodology: retrospective, diagnostic or prognostic study, performed at one institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany

    Jan-Erik Scholtz, Julian L. Wichmann, Kristina Hüsers, Moritz H. Albrecht, Martin Beeres, Ralf W. Bauer, Thomas J. Vogl & Boris Bodelle

  2. Institut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany

    Julian L. Wichmann, Kristina Hüsers, Moritz H. Albrecht, Martin Beeres, Ralf W. Bauer, Thomas J. Vogl & Boris Bodelle

Authors
  1. Jan-Erik Scholtz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julian L. Wichmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristina Hüsers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Moritz H. Albrecht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Martin Beeres
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ralf W. Bauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Thomas J. Vogl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Boris Bodelle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan-Erik Scholtz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scholtz, JE., Wichmann, J.L., Hüsers, K. et al. Third-generation dual-source CT of the neck using automated tube voltage adaptation in combination with advanced modeled iterative reconstruction: evaluation of image quality and radiation dose. Eur Radiol 26, 2623–2631 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4099-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4099-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation