Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prospective Study of Low- and Standard-dose Chest CT for Pulmonary Nodule Detection: A Comparison of Image Quality, Size Measurements and Radiation Exposure

  • Published:
Current Medical Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To comprehensively and accurately analyze the out-performance of low-dose chest CT (LDCT) vs. standard-dose CT (SDCT).

Methods

The image quality, size measurements and radiation exposure for LDCT and SDCT protocols were evaluated. A total of 117 patients with extra-thoracic malignancies were prospectively enrolled for non-enhanced CT scanning using LDCT and SDCT protocols. Three experienced radiologists evaluated subjective image quality independently using a 5-point score system. Nodule detection efficiency was compared between LDCT and SDCT based on nodule characteristics (size and volume). Radiation metrics and organ doses were analyzed using Radimetrics.

Results

The images acquired with the LDCT protocol yielded comparable quality to those acquired with the SDCT protocol. The sensitivity of LDCT for the detection of pulmonary nodules (n=650) was lower than that of SDCT (n=660). There was no significant difference in the diameter and volume of pulmonary nodules between LDCT and SDCT (for BMI <22 kg/m2, 4.37 vs. 4.46 mm, and 43.66 vs. 46.36 mm3; for BMI ≥22 kg/m2, 4.3 vs. 4.41 mm, and 41.66 vs. 44.86 mm3) (P>0.05). The individualized volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), the size specific dose estimate and effective dose were significantly reduced in the LDCT group compared with the SDCT group (all P<0.0001). This was especially true for dose-sensitive organs such as the lung (for BMI <22 kg/m2, 2.62 vs. 12.54 mSV, and for BMI ≥22 kg/m2, 1.62 vs. 9.79 mSV) and the breast (for BMI <22 kg/m2, 2.52 vs. 10.93 mSV, and for BMI ≥22 kg/m2, 1.53 vs. 9.01 mSV) (P<0.0001).

Conclusion

These results suggest that with the increases in image noise, LDCT and SDCT exhibited a comparable image quality and sensitivity. The LDCT protocol for chest scans may reduce radiation exposure by about 80% compared to the SDCT protocol.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mortazavi SMJ. Comments regarding: “Occupational exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields and brain tumor risk in the INTEROCC study: An individualized assessment approach”. Environ Int, 2018,121(Pt 1):1024

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med, 2011,365(5):395–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Berg CD, et al. The National Lung Screening Trial: overview and study design. Radiology, 2011,258(1):243–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gartenschläger M, Schweden F, Gast K, et al. Pulmonary nodules: detection with low-dose vs conventional-dose spiral CT. Eur Radiol, 1998,8(4):609–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rusinek H, Naidich DP, McGuinness G, et al. Pulmonary nodule detection: low-dose versus conventional CT. Radiology, 1998,209(1):243–249

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Baldwin DR, Callister ME. Guideline Development Group.The British Thoracic Society guidelines on the investigation and management of pulmonary nodules. Thorax, 2015,70(8):794–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. MacMahon H, Naidich DP, Goo JM, et al. Guidelines for management of incidental pulmonary nodules detected on CT images: from the Fleischner Society 2017. Radiology, 2017,284(1):228–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Heuvelmans MA, Vliegenthart R, Oudkerk M. Contributions of the European trials (European randomized screening group) in computed tomography lung cancer screening. J Thorac Imaging, 2015,30(2): 101–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Han D, Heuvelmans MA, Oudkerk M. Volume versus diameter assessment of small pulmonary nodules in CT lung cancer screening. Transl Lung Cancer Res, 2017, 6(1):52–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. McCollough C, Bakalyar DM, Bostani M, et al. Use of Water Equivalent Diameter for Calculating Patient Size and Size-Specific Dose Estimates (SSDE) in CT: The Report of AAPM Task Group 220. AAPM Rep, 2014,2014:6–23

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Christner JA, Braun NN, Jacobsen MC, et al. Size-specific dose estimates for adult patients at CT of the Torso. Radiology, 2012,265(3):841–847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Leng S, Shiung M, Duan X, et al. Size-specific Dose Estimates for Chest, Abdominal, and Pelvic CT: Effect of Intrapatient Variability in Water-equivalent Diameter. Radiology, 2015,276(1):184–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Valeri G, Cegna S, Mari A, et al. Evaluating the appropriateness of dosimetric indices in body CT. Radiol Med, 2015,120(5):466–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cléro E, Vaillant L, Hamada N, et al. History of radiation detriment and its calculation methodology used in ICRP Publication 103. J Radiol Prot, 2019,39(3):R19–R36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. ICRP. The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP, 2007,37(2–4):1–332

    Google Scholar 

  16. Prakash P, Kalra MK, Ackman JB, et al. Diffuse lung disease: CT of the chest with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Radiology, 2010,256(1):261–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bueno J, Landeras L, Chung JH. Updated Fleischner Society Guidelines for Managing Incidental Pulmonary Nodules: Common Questions and Challenging Scenarios. Radiographics. 2018,38(5):1337–1350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fujii K, McMillan K, Bostani M, et al. Patient Size-Specifc Analysis of Dose Indexes From CT Lung Cancer Screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2017,208(1):144–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Weis M, Henzler T, Nance JW Jr, et al. Radiation dose comparison between 70 kVp and 100 kVp with spectral beam shaping for non-contrast-enhanced pediatric chest computed tomography: A prospective randomized controlled study. Invest Radiol, 2017,52(3):155–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gabusi M, Riccardi L, Aliberti C, et al. Radiation dose in chest CT: Assessment of size-specific dose estimates based on water-equivalent correction. Phys Med, 2016, 32(2):393–397

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Leipsic J, Nguyen G, Brown J, et al. A prospective evaluation of dose reduction and image quality in chest CT using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. Am J Roentgenol, 2010,195(5):1095–1099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Liang M, Yip R, Tang W, et al. Variation in screening CT-detected nodule volumetry as a function of size. Am J Roentgenol, 2017,209(2):304–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. E Linning, Ma DQ. Volumetric measurement pulmonary ground-glass opacity nodules with multi-detector CT: effect of various tube current on measurement accuracy—a chest CT phantom study. Acad Radiol, 2009,16(8): 934–939

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Franck C, Vandevoorde C, Goethals I, et al. The role of Size-Specific Dose Estimate (SSDE) in patient-specific organ dose and cancer risk estimation in paediatric chest and abdominopelvic CT examinations. Eur Radiol, 2016,26(8):2646–2655

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China

    Qiong-jie Hu, Yi-wen Liu, Chong Chen, Zi-yan Sun, Yu-jin Wang, Min Xiang, Li-ming Xia & Han-xiong Guan

  2. Department of Radiology, Shenzhen Maternity & Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, 518028, China

    Shi-chao Kang

Authors
  1. Qiong-jie Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yi-wen Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chong Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shi-chao Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zi-yan Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yu-jin Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Min Xiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Li-ming Xia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Han-xiong Guan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Han-xiong Guan.

Ethics declarations

We declare that we have no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hu, Qj., Liu, Yw., Chen, C. et al. Prospective Study of Low- and Standard-dose Chest CT for Pulmonary Nodule Detection: A Comparison of Image Quality, Size Measurements and Radiation Exposure. CURR MED SCI 41, 966–973 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11596-021-2433-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11596-021-2433-z

Key words

Search

Navigation