Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Low Dose Pediatric CT Head Protocol using Iterative Reconstruction Techniques: A Comparison with Standard Dose Protocol

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Neuroradiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Pediatric computed tomography (CT) head examination has also increased in recent years with the advancement in CT technology; however, children exposed to radiation at the youngest age are more vulnerable to the risks of radiation. The aim of the study is to evaluate radiation dose and image quality of low dose pediatric CT head protocol compared to standard dose pediatric CT head protocol.

Methods

This was a prospective study. Group 1 included 73 patients aged < 1 year and 70 patients in the 1–5 years age group and had undergone CT head examination using the standard dose protocol. Group 2 included 31 patients aged < 1 year and 40 patients in the 1–5 years age group and had undergone CT head examination using the low dose protocol. The radiation dose was measured and image quality was assessed quantitatively and qualitatively.

Results

There was a significant difference in radiation dose between the standard and low dose protocols (p > 0.05) with lower radiation dose for low dose group. The qualitative analysis did not show a significant difference between the standard and low dose protocols. The gray-white matter differentiation (GWMD), attenuation, contrast to noise ratio (CNR) and figure of merit (FOM) were higher in the low dose protocol compared to the standard dose with a significant difference (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

The study concludes that a low dose protocol at 80 kV tube voltage/150 mAs tube current exposure time product/iterative reconstruction-iDose4 (level 3) for < 1 year age group and 100 kV/200m As/iDose4 (level 3) for 1–5 years age group provides ultra-low effective dose with diagnostically acceptable image quality for pediatric CT head examination compared with standard dose 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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shah NB, Platt SL. ALARA: is there a cause for alarm? Reducing radiation risks from computed tomography scanning in children. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2008;20:243–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gupta N, Upreti L. Optimal utilization of pediatric computed tomography to minimize radiation exposure: what the clinician must know. Indian Pediatr. 2017;54:581–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Power SP, Moloney F, Twomey M, James K, O’Connor OJ, Maher MM. Computed tomography and patient risk: facts, perceptions and uncertainties. World J Radiol. 2016;8:902.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, McHugh K, Lee C, Kim KP, et al. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2012;380:499–505.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Meulepas JM, Ronckers CM, Smets AMJB, Nievelstein RAJ, Gradowska P, Lee C, et al. Radiation exposure from pediatric CT scans and subsequent cancer risk in the Netherlands. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111:256–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Al Mahrooqi KMS, Ng CKC, Sun Z. Pediatric computed tomography dose optimization strategies: a literature review. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2015;46:241–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Khawaja RDA, Singh S, Otrakji A, Padole A, Lim R, Nimkin K, et al. Dose reduction in pediatric abdominal CT: use of iterative reconstruction techniques across different CT platforms. Pediatr Radiol. 2015;45:1046–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Patino M, Fuentes JM, Hayano K, Kambadakone AR, Uyeda JW, Sahani DV. A quantitative comparison of noise reduction across five commercial (hybrid and model-based) iterative reconstruction techniques: an anthropomorphic phantom study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:W176–W83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nagayama Y, Oda S, Nakaura T, Tsuji A, Urata J, Furusawa M, et al. Radiation dose reduction at pediatric CT: Use of low tube voltage and iterative reconstruction. Radiographics. 2018;38:1421–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dieckmeyer M, Sollmann N, Kupfer K, Löffler MT, Paprottka KJ, Kirschke JS, et al. Computed tomography of the head: a systematic review on acquisition and reconstruction techniques to reduce radiation dose. Clin Neuroradiol. 2023; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-023-01271-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Padole A, Khawaja RDA, Kalra MK, Singh S. CT radiation dose and iterative reconstruction techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:W384–W92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Godt JC, Johansen CK, Martinsen ACT, Schulz A, Brøgger HM, Jensen K, et al. Iterative reconstruction improves image quality and reduces radiation dose in trauma protocols; a human cadaver study. Acta Radiol Open. 2021;10:205846012110553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ben-david E, Cohen JE, Goldberg SN, Sosna J, Levinson R, Leichter IS, et al. Significance of enhanced cerebral gray-white matter contrast at 80 kVp compared to conventional 120 kVp CT scan in the evaluation of acute stroke. J Clin Neurosci. 2014;21:1591–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nakamura K, Maeda K, Tanooka M, Aoyama S, Ishikura R. Computed tomography using a low tube voltage technique for acute Ischemic. Stroke. 2019; 24–35.

  15. Menzel HG, Schibilla H, Teunen D. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Luxembourg: European Commission. 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Guziński M, Waszczuk Ł, Sąsiadek MJ. Head CT: image quality improvement of posterior fossa and radiation dose reduction with AsiR—comparative studies of CT head examinations. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:3691–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Park JE, Choi YH, Cheon JE, Kim WS, Kim IO, Cho HS, et al. Image quality and radiation dose of brain computed tomography in children: effects of decreasing tube voltage from 120 kVp to 80 kVp. Pediatr Radiol. 2017;47:710–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Valentin J. International commission on radiation protection. Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography(MDCT). ICRP publication 102. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(1):1–iii.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. AAPM Report No. 96. The Measurement, Reporting, and Management of Radiation Dose in CT. 2008; https://doi.org/10.37206/97

  20. Lee SK, Kim JS, Yoon SW, Kim JM. Development of CT effective dose conversion factors from clinical CT examinations in the republic of korea. Diagnostics (Basel Switzerland). 2020;10:727.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chang KP, Hsu TK, Lin WT, Hsu WL. Optimization of dose and image quality in adult and pediatric computed tomography scans. Radiat Phys Chem. 2017;140:260–5.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hauptmann M, Byrnes G, Cardis E, Bernier MO, Blettner M, Dabin J, et al. Brain cancer after radiation exposure from CT examinations of children and young adults: results from the EPI-CT cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24(1):45–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nakai Y, Miyazaki O, Kitamura M, Imai R, Okamoto R, Tsutsumi Y, et al. Evaluation of radiation dose reduction in head CT using the half-dose method. Jpn J Radiol. 2023; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-023-01410-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Muhammad NA, Karim MKA, Harun HH, Rahman MAA, Azlan RNRM, Sumardi NF. The impact of tube current and iterative reconstruction algorithm on dose and image quality of infant CT head examination. Radiat Phys Chem. 2022;200:110272.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kilic K, Erbas G, Guryildirim M, Konus OL, Arac M, Ilgit E, et al. Quantitative and qualitative comparison of standard-dose and low-dose pediatric head computed tomography: a retrospective study assessing the effect of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2013;37:377–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Udayasankar UK, Braithwaite K, Arvaniti M, Tudorascu D, Small WC, Little S, et al. Low-dose nonenhanced head CT protocol for follow-up evaluation of children with ventriculoperitoneal shunt: reduction of radiation and effect on image quality. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29:802–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Roguski M, Morel B, Sweeney M, Talan J, Rideout L, Riesenburger RI, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging as an alternative to computed tomography in select patients with traumatic brain injury: a retrospective comparison. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2015;15:529–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Imaging Technology, Manipal College of Health Professions, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India, 576104

    Priyanka & Suresh Sukumar

  2. Department of Radio diagnosis and Imaging, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India, 576104

    Rajagopal Kadavigere

Authors
  1. Priyanka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rajagopal Kadavigere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Suresh Sukumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by all authors. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Dr. Priyanka and all authors commented on the first draft of the manuscript. Statistical analysis: Dr. Priyanka and Dr. Rajagopal Kadavigere, supervision: Dr. Rajagopal Kadavigere and Dr. Suresh Sukumar. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajagopal Kadavigere.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Priyanka, R. Kadavigere and S. Sukumar declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical standards

The current study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Kasturba Medical College and Kasturba Hospital, Manipal (IEC:610/2018). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants or on human tissue were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1975 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained prior to the participation in the study from the legal guardians of the participants.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Priyanka, Kadavigere, R. & Sukumar, S. Low Dose Pediatric CT Head Protocol using Iterative Reconstruction Techniques: A Comparison with Standard Dose Protocol. Clin Neuroradiol 34, 229–239 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-023-01361-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-023-01361-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation