Radiation dose reduction using 100-kVp and a sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction algorithm in adolescent head CT: Impact on grey–white matter contrast and image noise
- 285 Downloads
To retrospectively evaluate the image quality and radiation dose of 100-kVp scans with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (IR) for unenhanced head CT in adolescents.
Sixty-nine patients aged 12–17 years underwent head CT under 120- (n = 34) or 100-kVp (n = 35) protocols. The 120-kVp images were reconstructed with filtered back-projection (FBP), 100-kVp images with FBP (100-kVp-F) and sinogram-affirmed IR (100-kVp-S). We compared the effective dose (ED), grey–white matter (GM–WM) contrast, image noise, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) between protocols in supratentorial (ST) and posterior fossa (PS). We also assessed GM–WM contrast, image noise, sharpness, artifacts, and overall image quality on a four-point scale.
ED was 46% lower with 100- than 120-kVp (p < 0.001). GM–WM contrast was higher, and image noise was lower, on 100-kVp-S than 120-kVp at ST (p < 0.001). CNR of 100-kVp-S was higher than of 120-kVp (p < 0.001). GM–WM contrast of 100-kVp-S was subjectively rated as better than of 120-kVp (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the other criteria between 100-kVp-S and 120-kVp (p = 0.072–0.966).
The 100-kVp with sinogram-affirmed IR facilitated dramatic radiation reduction and better GM–WM contrast without increasing image noise in adolescent head CT.
• 100-kVp head CT provides 46% radiation dose reduction compared with 120-kVp.
• 100-kVp scanning improves subjective and objective GM–WM contrast.
• Sinogram-affirmed IR decreases head CT image noise, especially in supratentorial region.
• 100-kVp protocol with sinogram-affirmed IR is suited for adolescent head CT.
KeywordsPaediatrics Computed tomography X-ray Cranial irradiation Radiation protection Image processing
Automatic exposure control
Automated tube voltage selection
Region of interest
Sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Yasuyuki Yamashita. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. No study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported. Methodology: retrospective, case-control study, performed at one institution.
- 19.Kilic K, Erbas G, Guryildirim M et al (2013) 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 37:377–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.European guidelines for quality criteria for computed tomography (2000) European Commission, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
- 31.Lewis DW, Ashwal S, Dahl G et al (2002) Practice parameter: evaluation of children and adolescents with recurrent headaches: report of the quality standards subcommittee of the American academy of neurology and the practice committee of the child neurology society. Neurology 59:490–498CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Hirtz D, Ashwal S, Berg A et al (2000) Practice parameter: evaluating a first nonfebrile seizure in children: report of the quality standards subcommittee of the American academy of neurology, the child neurology society, and the American epilepsy society. Neurology 55:616–623CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.Yu L, Leng S, Chen L, Kofler JM, Carter RE, McCollough CH (2013) Prediction of human observer performance in a 2-alternative forced choice low-contrast detection task using channelized Hotelling observer: impact of radiation dose and reconstruction algorithms. Med Phys 40:041908CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar