Image quality assessment of ultra low-dose chest CT using sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction
- 899 Downloads
To assess the image quality of ultra-low-dose computed tomography (ULDCT) using sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) compared to reduced dose CT (RDCT).
Eighty-one consecutive patients underwent non-enhanced ULDCT using 80 kVp and 30 mAs and contrast-enhanced RDCT using automated tube potential selection and tube current modulation. CT images were reconstructed with SAFIRE. Image noise and subjective image quality of normal structures and various pulmonary lesions were assessed.
The mean effective doses were 0.29 ± 0.03 and 2.88 ± 1.11 mSv for ULDCT and RDCT, respectively. ULDCT had significantly higher noise (p < 0.001). Image quality of five normal structures was diagnostic in 91.1 % of ULDCT and 100 % of RDCT. With ULDCT, the frequencies of non-diagnostic image quality were 2.0 (1/50), 4.6 (13/280), 25.5 (14/55), and 40.0 (8/20)% for BMIs of < 20, 20–25, 25–30, and >30. In the assessment of pulmonary lesions, non-diagnostic image quality was observed for 11.2 % of all lesions, 60.9 % of decreased attenuation (significantly more frequent for upper lung lesions), and 23.5 % of ground-glass nodules.
ULDCT generates diagnostic images in patients with a BMI ≤25, but is of limited use for lesions with decreased attenuation, ground-glass nodules, or those located in the upper lobe.
• Iterative reconstruction enables ultra-low-dose CT (ULDCT) with very low radiation doses.
• Image quality of ULDCT depends on the patient body mass index (BMI).
• Selection of kVp and mAs depends on both BMI and lesion type.
• Diagnosis of pulmonary emphysema or ground-glass nodules requires higher radiation doses.
KeywordsComputed tomography Iterative reconstruction Radiation dose reduction
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Yookyung Kim. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services are related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this article. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. Methodology: retrospective, observational, performed at one institution
- 9.AAPM (2008) AAPM report no. 96: The measurement, reporting, and management of radiation dose in CT. College Park: American Association of Physicists in Medicine.Google Scholar
- 10.Moscariello A, Takx RA, Schoepf UJ et al (2011) Coronary CT angiography: Image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and potential for radiation dose reduction using a novel iterative image reconstruction technique-comparison with traditional filtered back projection. Eur Radiol 21:2130–2138. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2164-9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Neroladaki A, Botsikas D, Boudabbous S, Becker CD, Montet X (2013) Computed tomography of the chest with model-based iterative reconstruction using a radiation exposure similar to chest X-ray examination: Preliminary observations. Eur Radiol 23:360–366. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2627-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Yamada Y, Jinzaki M, Hosokawa T et al (2012) Dose reduction in chest CT: Comparison of the adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D, adaptive iterative dose reduction, and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Eur J Radiol 81:4185–4195. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.07.013 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Baldwin DR, Duffy SW, Wald NJ, Page R, Hansell DM, Field JK (2011) UK lung screen (UKLS) nodule management protocol: Modelling of a single screen randomised controlled trial of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer. Thorax 66:308–313. doi: 10.1136/thx.2010.152066 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Gnannt R, Winklehner A, Eberli D, Knuth A, Frauenfelder T, Alkadhi H (2012) Automated tube potential selection for standard chest and abdominal CT in follow-up patients with testicular cancer: Comparison with fixed tube potential. Eur Radiol 22:1937–1945. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2453-y PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar