Evaluation of image quality and lesion perception by human readers on 3D CT colonography: comparison of standard and low radiation dose
We compared the prevalence of noise-related artefacts and lesion perception on three-dimensional (3D) CT colonography (CTC) at standard and low radiation doses.
Forty-eight patients underwent CTC (64 × 0.625 mm collimation; tube rotation time 0.5 s; automatic tube current modulation: standard dose 40–160 mA, low dose 10–50 mA). Low- and standard-dose acquisitions were performed in the supine position, one after the other. The presence of artefacts (cobblestone and snow artefacts, irregularly delineated folds) and the presence of polyps were evaluated by five radiologists on 3D images at standard dose, the original low dose and a modified low dose, i.e. after manipulation of opacity on 3D.
The mean effective dose was 3.9 ± 1.3 mSv at standard dose and 1.03 ± 0.4 mSv at low dose. The number of images showing cobblestone artefacts and irregularly delineated folds at original and modified low doses was significantly higher than at standard dose (P < 0.0001). Most of the artefacts on modified low-dose images were mild. No significant difference in sensitivity between the dose levels was found for polyps ≥6 mm.
Reduction of the effective dose to 1 mSv significantly affects image quality on 3D CTC, but the perception of ≥6 mm lesions is not significantly impaired.
KeywordsCT colonography Radiation exposure Image quality Threedimensional CT Colonic neoplasm
- 1.Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al (2008) Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin 58:130–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.American College of Radiology (2006) ACR practice guideline for the performance of computed tomography (CT) colonography in adults. American College of Radiology, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
- 4.Macari M, Bini EJ, Xue X, Milano A, Katz SS, Resnick D, Chandarana H, Krinsky G, Klingenbeck K, Marshall CH, Megibow AJ (2002) Colorectal neoplasms: prospective comparison of thin-section low-dose multi-detector row CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection. Radiology 224:383–392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Van Gelder RE, Venema HW, Florie J, Nio CY, Serlie IW, Schutter MP, van Rijn JC, Vos FM, Glas AS, Bossuyt PM, Bartelsman JF, Laméris JS, Stoker J (2004) CT colonography: feasibility of substantial dose reduction–comparison of medium to very low doses in identical patients. Radiology 232:611–620CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Cohnen M, Vogt C, Beck A, Andersen K, Heinen W, vom Dahl S, Aurich V, Haeussinger D, Moedder U (2004) Feasibility of MDCT colonography in ultra-low-dose technique in the detection of colorectal lesions: comparison with high-resolution video colonoscopy. Am J Roentgenol 183:1355–1359Google Scholar
- 10.Iannaccone R, Catalano C, Mangiapane F, Murakami T, Lamazza A, Fiori E, Schillaci A, Marin D, Nofroni I, Hori M, Passariello R (2005) Colorectal polyps: detection with low-dose multi-detector row helical CT colonography versus two sequential colonoscopies. Radiology 237:927–937CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Florie J, van Gelder RE, Schutter MP, van Randen A, Venema HW, de Jager S, van der Hulst VP, Prent A, Bipat S, Bossuyt PM, Baak LC, Stoker J (2007) Feasibility study of computed tomography colonography using limited bowel preparation at normal and low-dose levels study. Eur Radiol 17:3112–3122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Tack D, De Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA (2003) Dose reduction in multidetector CT using attenuation-based online tube current modulation. Am J Roentgenol 181:331–334Google Scholar
- 15.Fisichella V, Jäderling F, Horvath S, Stotzer PO, Kilander A, Hellström M (2009) Primary three-dimensional analysis with perspective-filet view versus primary two-dimensional analysis: evaluation of lesion detection by inexperienced readers at computed tomographic colonography in symptomatic patients. Acta Radiol 50:244–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.IEC (1999) International standard of IEC 60601-2-44. Medical electrical equipment - part 2–44: particular requirements for the safety of x-ray equipment for computed tomographyGoogle Scholar
- 19.Bongartz G, Golding SJ, Jurik AG et al (1999) European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Report EUR 16262 EN. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
- 25.Kurt Rossmann Laboratories for Radiologic Image Research at the University of Chicago (2009) Software download. http://www-radiology.uchicago.edu/krl/KRL_ROC/software_index6.htm. Accessed on the 19 February 2009
- 26.Chakraborty DP (2009) JAFROC-1 software. www.devchakraborty.com