Comparison of radiation dose estimates, image noise, and scan duration in pediatric body imaging for volumetric and helical modes on 320-detector CT and helical mode on 64-detector CT

Jennifer H. Johnston; Daniel J. Podberesky; Terry T. Yoshizumi; Erin Angel; Greta Toncheva; David B. Larson; John C. Egelhoff; Colin Anderson-Evans; Giao B. Nguyen; Alessandra Barelli; Christopher Alsip; Shelia R. Salisbury; Donald P. Frush

doi:10.1007/s00247-013-2690-5

Pediatric Radiology

September 2013, Volume 43, Issue 9, pp 1117–1127

Comparison of radiation dose estimates, image noise, and scan duration in pediatric body imaging for volumetric and helical modes on 320-detector CT and helical mode on 64-detector CT

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Jennifer H. JohnstonEmail author
Daniel J. Podberesky
Terry T. Yoshizumi
Erin Angel
Greta Toncheva
David B. Larson
John C. Egelhoff
Colin Anderson-Evans
Giao B. Nguyen
Alessandra Barelli
Christopher Alsip
Shelia R. Salisbury
Donald P. Frush

Original Article

First Online:: 01 May 2013

Received:: 24 August 2012
Revised:: 13 February 2013
Accepted:: 15 February 2013

10 Citations
3 Shares
541 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Advanced multidetector CT systems facilitate volumetric image acquisition, which offers theoretic dose savings over helical acquisition with shorter scan times.

Objective

Compare effective dose (ED), scan duration and image noise using 320- and 64-detector CT scanners in various acquisition modes for clinical chest, abdomen and pelvis protocols.

Materials and methods

ED and scan durations were determined for 64-detector helical, 160-detector helical and volume modes under chest, abdomen and pelvis protocols on 320-detector CT with adaptive collimation and 64-detector helical mode on 64-detector CT without adaptive collimation in a phantom representing a 5-year-old child. Noise was measured as standard deviation of Hounsfield units.

Results

Compared to 64-detector helical CT, all acquisition modes on 320-detector CT resulted in lower ED and scan durations. Dose savings were greater for chest (27–46%) than abdomen/pelvis (18–28%) and chest/abdomen/pelvis imaging (8–14%). Noise was similar across scanning modes, although some protocols on 320-detector CT produced slightly higher noise.

Conclusion

Dose savings can be achieved for chest, abdomen/pelvis and chest/abdomen/pelvis examinations on 320-detector CT compared to helical acquisition on 64-detector CT, with shorter scan durations. Although noise differences between some modes reached statistical significance, this is of doubtful diagnostic significance and will be studied further in a clinical setting.

Keywords

Radiation dosage Volume computed tomography Multidetector computed tomography Scan time Children

References

1.
Larson DB, Johnson LW, Schnell BM et al (2011) Rising use of CT in child visits to the emergency department in the United States, 1995–2008. Radiology 259:793–801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.
Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E et al (2001) Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:289–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.
Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP et al (2012) Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 380:499–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.
Bogdanich W, Rebelo K (2011) X-rays and unshielded infants. New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/health/28radiation.html?_r=0. Published 27 February 2011: Accessed 17 December 2012.
5.
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 169:2071–2077PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.
Choi SI, George RT, Schuleri KH et al (2009) Recent developments in wide-detector cardiac computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 25:23–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.
Kroft LJ, Roelofs JJ, Geleijns J (2009) Scan time and patient dose for thoracic imaging in neonates and small children using axial volumetric 320-detector row CT compared to helical 64-, 32-, and 16- detector row CT acquisitions. Pediatr Radiol 40:294–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.
Sorantin E, Riccabona M, Stucklschweiger G et al (2012) Experience with volumetric (320 rows) pediatric CT. Eur J Radiol. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.12.001 Google Scholar
9.
Greenberg SB, Bhutta S, Braswell L et al (2011) Computed tomography angiography in children with cardiovascular disease: low dose techniques and image quality. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 28:163–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.
Al-Mousily F, Shifrin RY, Fricker FJ et al (2011) Use of 320-detector computed tomographic angiography for infants and young children with congenital heart disease. Pediatr Cardiol 32:426–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.
Bardo DM, Asamato J, Mackay CS et al (2009) Low-dose coronary artery computed tomography angiogram of an infant with tetralogy of fallot using a 256-slice multidetector computed tomography scanner. Pediatr Cardiol 30:824–826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.
Zhang T, Wang W, Luo Z et al (2011) Initial experience on the application of 320-row CT angiography with low-dose prospective ECG-triggered in children with congenital heart disease. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. doi:10.1007/s10554-011-0005-1 Google Scholar
13.
Podberesky DJ, Angel E, Yoshizumi TT et al (2012) Radiation dose estimation for prospective and retrospective ECG-gated cardiac CT angiography in infants and small children using a 320-MDCT volume scanner. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:1129–1135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.
ICRP (2007) The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 37:1–332Google Scholar
15.
Yoshizumi TT, Goodman PC, Frush DP et al (2007) Validation of metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor technology for organ dose assessment during CT: comparison with thermoluminescent dosimetry. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:1332–1336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.
Cristy M, Eckerman KF (1987) Specific absorbed fractions of energy at various ages from internal photon sources. ORNL/TM-8381. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak RidgeGoogle Scholar
17.
Zhang D, Savandi AS, Demarco JJ et al (2009) Variability of surface and center position radiation dose in MDCT: Monte Carlo simulations using CTDI and anthropomorphic phantoms. Med Phys 36:1025–1038PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.
American Association of Physicists in Medicine (2011) Report 204: Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College ParkGoogle Scholar
19.
O'Daniel JC, Stevens DM, Cody DD (2005) Reducing radiation exposure from survey CT scans. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185:509–515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.
Kitajima K, Maeda T, Ohno Y et al (2010) Capability of abdominal 320-detector row CT for small vasculature assessment compared with that of 64-detector row CT. Eur J Radiol 80:219–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.
Yamashiro T, Miyara T, Takahashi M et al (2012) Lung image quality with 320-row wide-volume CT scans: the effect of prospective ECG-gating and comparisons with 64-row helical CT scans. Acad Radiol 19:380–388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.
Motosugi U, Ichikawa T, Sou H et al (2012) Multi-organ perfusion CT in the abdomen using a 320-detector row CT scanner: preliminary results of perfusion changes in the liver, spleen, and pancreas of cirrhotic patients. Eur J Radiol 81:2533–2537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.
Schilham A, van der Molen AJ, Prokop M et al (2010) Overranging at multisection CT: an underestimated source of excess radiation exposure. Radiographics 30:1057–1067PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.
Tzedakis A, Damilakis J, Perisinakis K et al (2005) The effect of z overscanning on patient effective dose from multidetector helical computed tomography examinations. Med Phys 32:1621–1629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.
Massoumzadeh P, Don S, Hildebolt CF et al (2009) Validation of CT dose-reduction simulation. Med Phys 36:174–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.
Martin CJ (2007) Effective dose: how should it be applied to medical exposures? Br J Radiol 80:639–647PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Jennifer H. Johnston
- 2
Email author
Daniel J. Podberesky
- 1
Terry T. Yoshizumi
- 4
Erin Angel
- 5
Greta Toncheva
- 6
- 7
David B. Larson
- 1
John C. Egelhoff
- 1
- 3
Colin Anderson-Evans
- 6
- 8
Giao B. Nguyen
- 6
Alessandra Barelli
- 5
Christopher Alsip
- 1
Shelia R. Salisbury
- 9
Donald P. Frush
- 6

1.Department of RadiologyCincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA
2.The University of Texas Medical School at Houston6431 Fannin St., MSB 2.130BHoustonUSA
3.Department of RadiologyPhoenix Children’s HospitalPhoenixUSA
4.Radiation Safety Division, Department of RadiologyDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
5.Toshiba America Medical SystemsTustinUSA
6.Duke University Medical CenterDepartment of RadiologyDurhamUSA
7.Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBerkeleyUSA
8.Quality Assurance ServicesChula VistaUSA
9.Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical CenterCenter for Epidemiology and BiostatisticsCincinnatiUSA

About this article

Cite this article as:: Johnston, J.H., Podberesky, D.J., Yoshizumi, T.T. et al. Pediatr Radiol (2013) 43: 1117. doi:10.1007/s00247-013-2690-5

Comparison of radiation dose estimates, image noise, and scan duration in pediatric body imaging for volumetric and helical modes on 320-detector CT and helical mode on 64-detector CT

Abstract

Background

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cookies