Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Acquisition time, radiation dose, subjective and objective image quality of dual-source CT scanners in acute pulmonary embolism: a comparative study

  • Chest
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the scan acquisition time, radiation dose, subjective and objective image quality of two dual-source CT scanners (DSCT) for detection of acute pulmonary embolism.

Methods

Two hundred twenty-one scans performed on the 2nd-generation DSCT and 354 scans on the 3rd-generation DSCT were included in this large retrospective study. In a randomized blinded design, two radiologists independently reviewed the scans using a 5-point Likert scale. Radiation dose and objective image quality parameters were calculated.

Results

Mean acquisition time was significantly lower in the 3rd-generation DSCT (2.81 s ± 0.1 in comparison with 9.7 s ± 0.15 [mean ± SD] respectively; p < 0.0001) with the 3rd generation 3.4 times faster. The mean subjective image quality score was 4.33/5 and 4/5 for the 3rd- and 2nd-generation DSCT respectively (p < 0.0001) with strong interobserver reliability agreement. DLP, CTDIvol, and ED were significantly lower in the 3rd than the 2nd generation (175.6 ± 63.7 mGy cm; 5.3 ± 1.9 mGy and 2.8 ± 1.2 mSv in comparison with 266 ± 255 mGy.cm; 7.8 ± 2.2 mGy and 3.8 ± 4.3 mSv). Noise was significantly lower in the 3rd generation (p < 0.01). Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and figure of merit (FOM), a dose-insensitive index for CNR, were significantly higher in the 3rd-generation DSCT (33.5 ± 23.4; 29.0 ± 21.3 and 543.7 ± 1037 in comparison with 23.4 ± 17.7; 19.4 ± 16.0 and 170.5 ± 284.3).

Conclusion

Objective and subjective image quality are significantly higher on the 3rd-generation DSCT with significantly lower mean acquisition time and radiation dose.

Key Points

• The 3rd-generation DSCT scanner provides an improved image quality, less perceived artifacts, and lower radiation dose in comparison with the 2nd-generation DSCT, when operating in dual-energy (DE) mode.

• The 3.4-times-faster 3rd-generation DSCT scanner can be of particular value in patients with chronic lung diseases or breathing difficulties that prevent adequate breathhold.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Abbreviations

ADMIRE:

Advanced Modeled Iterative Reconstruction

BMI:

Body mass index

CNR:

Contrast-to-noise ratio

CTPA:

Computed tomography pulmonary angiogram

DECT:

Dual-energy computed tomography

DSCT:

Dual-source computed tomography

ED:

Effective dose

FOM:

Figure of merit

FOV:

Field of view

ICOPER:

International Cooperative Pulmonary Embolism Registry

PE:

Pulmonary embolism

PEO:

Population-exposure-outcome

SAFIRE:

Sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction

SECT:

Single-energy computed tomography

SSCT:

Single-source computed tomography

References

  1. Carson JL, Kelley MA, Duff A et al (1992) The clinical course of pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 326(19):1240-1245. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199205073261902

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Goldhaber SZ, Visani L, De Rosa M (1999) Acute pulmonary embolism: clinical outcomes in the international cooperative pulmonary embolism registry (icoper). Lancet 353:1386-1389. https//doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07534-5

  3. Stein PD, Fowler SE, Goodman LR et al (2006) Multidetector computed tomography for acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 354:2317-2327. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa052367

  4. Raja AS, Greenberg JO, Qaseem A et al (2015) Evaluation of patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the american college of physicians. Ann Intern Med 163(9):701-711. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-1772

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhang L-J, Zhao Y-E, Wu S-Y et al (2009) Pulmonary embolism detection with dual-energy ct: experimental study of dual-source ct in rabbits. Radiology 252(1):61-70. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2521081682

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lu G-M, Wu S-Y, Yeh BM, Zhang L-J (2010) Dual-energy computed tomography in pulmonary embolism. Br J Radiol 83(992):707-718. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/16337436

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Otrakji A, Digumarthy SR, Lo Gullo R, Flores EJ, Shepard J-AO, Kalra MK (2016) Dual-energy ct: spectrum of thoracic abnormalities. Radiographics 36(1):38-52. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2016150081

  8. Faby S, Kuchenbecker S, Sawall S et al (2015) Performance of today’s dual energy ct and future multi energy ct in virtual non-contrast imaging and in iodine quantification: a simulation study. Med Phys 42(7):4349-4366. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4922654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Grajo JR, Patino M, Prochowski A, Sahani DV (2016) Dual energy ct in practice: basic principles and applications. Appl Radiol 45:6+

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lenga L, Albrecht MH, Othman AE et al (2017) Monoenergetic dual-energy computed tomographic imaging: cardiothoracic applications. J Thorac Imaging 32(3):151-158. https://doi.org/10.1097/RTI.0000000000000259

  11. Yu L, Primak AN, Liu X, McCollough CH (2009) Image quality optimization and evaluation of linearly mixed images in dual-source, dual-energy ct. Med Phys 36(3):1019-1024. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3077921

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Borhani AA, Kulzer M, Iranpour N et al (2017) Comparison of true unenhanced and virtual unenhanced (vue) attenuation values in abdominopelvic single-source rapid kilovoltage-switching spectral CT. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42(3):710-717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0991-5

  13. Weidman EK, Plodkowski AJ, Halpenny DF et al (2018) Dual-energy ct angiography for detection of pulmonary emboli: incremental benefit of iodine maps. Radiology 289(2):546-553. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018180594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhang LJ, Zhou CS, Schoepf UJ et al (2013) Dual-energy ct lung ventilation/perfusion imaging for diagnosing pulmonary embolism. Eur Radiol 23(10):2666-2675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2907-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Geyer LL, Scherr M, Körner M et al (2012) Imaging of acute pulmonary embolism using a dual energy ct system with rapid kvp switching: initial results. Eur J Radiol 81(12):3711-3718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.02.043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pontana F, Faivre J-B, Remy-Jardin M et al (2008) Lung perfusion with dual-energy multidetector-row ct (mdct): feasibility for the evaluation of acute pulmonary embolism in 117 consecutive patients. Acad Radiol 15(12):1494-1504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2008.05.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Shefer E, Altman A, Behling R et al (2013) State of the art of ct detectors and sources: a literature review. Curr Radiol Rep 1:76-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-012-0006-4

  18. Doerner J, Hauger M, Hickethier T et al (2017) Image quality evaluation of dual-layer spectral detector ct of the chest and comparison with conventional ct imaging. Eur J Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.05.016

  19. Lenga L, Trapp F, Albrecht MH et al (2019) Single- and dual-energy CT pulmonary angiography using second- and third-generation dualsource ct systems: comparison of radiation dose and image quality. Eur Radiol 29:4603-4612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5982-1

  20. Lenga L, Leithner D, Peterke JL et al (2019) Comparison of radiation dose and image quality of contrast-enhanced dual-source CT of the chest: single-versus dual-energy and second-versus third-generation technology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 212:741-747. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20065

  21. Mangold S, De Cecco CN, Wichmann JL et al (2016) Effect of automated tube voltage selection, integrated circuit detector and advanced iterative reconstruction on radiation dose and image quality of 3rd generation dual-source aortic CT angiography: an intra-individual comparison. Eur J Radiol 85(5):972-978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.02.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Petritsch B, Kosmala A, Gassenmaier T et al (2017) Diagnosis of pulmonary artery embolism: comparison of single-source CT and 3rd generation dual-source CT using a dual-energy protocol regarding image quality and radiation dose. Rofo 189(06):527-536. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-103089

  23. Wichmann JL, Hardie AD, Schoepf UJ et al (2017) Single- and dual-energy CT of the abdomen: comparison of radiation dose and image quality of 2nd and 3rd generation dual-source ct. Eur Radiol 27(2):642-650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4383-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bae KT, Tao C, Gürel S et al (2007) Effect of patient weight and scanning duration on contrast enhancement during pulmonary multidetector CT angiography. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2422052132

  25. Ramadan SU, Kosar P, Sonmez I, Karahan S, Kosar U (2010) Optimisation of contrast medium volume and injection-related factors in ct pulmonary angiography: 64-slice CT study. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1782-y

  26. Viteri-Ramírez G, García-Lallana A, Simón-Yarza I et al (2012) Low radiation and low-contrast dose pulmonary ct angiography: comparison of 80 kvp/60 ml and 100 kvp/80 ml protocols. Clin Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2011.11.016

  27. McLaughlin PD, Liang T, Homiedan M et al (2015) High pitch, low voltage dual source ct pulmonary angiography: assessment of image quality and diagnostic acceptability with hybrid iterative reconstruction. Emerg Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-014-1230-4

  28. Wu C, Sodickson A, Cai T et al (2010) Comparison of respiratory motion artifact from craniocaudal versus caudocranial scanning with 64-mdct pulmonary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3673

  29. Mayo-Smith WW, Hara AK, Mahesh M, Sahani DV, Pavlicek W (2014) How I do it: managing radiation dose in CT. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14132328

  30. Fanous R, Kashani H, Jimenez L, Murphy G, Paul NS (2012) Image quality and radiation dose of pulmonary CT angiography performed using 100 and 120 kvp. AJR Am J Roentgenol. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.8208

  31. Sarma A, Heilbrun ME, Conner KE, Stevens SM, Woller SC, Elliott CG (2012) Radiation and chest CT scan examinations: what do we know? Chest. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.11-2863

  32. Hricak H, Brenner DJ, Adelstein SJ et al (2011) Managing radiation use in medical imaging: a multifaceted challenge. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10101157

  33. Rogalla P, Blobel J, Kandel S et al (2010) Radiation dose optimisation in dynamic volume ct of the heart: tube current adaptation based on anterior-posterior chest diameter. Int J Card Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-010-9630-3

  34. Zarb F, Rainford L, McEntee MF (2010) AP diameter shows the strongest correlation with ctdi and dlp in abdominal and chest ct. Radiat Prot Dosim. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncq115

  35. Schmid AI, Uder M, Lell MM (2016) Reaching for better image quality and lower radiation dose in head and neck CT: advanced modeled and sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction in combination with tube voltage adaptation. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160131

  36. Meyer M, Haubenreisser H, Schoepf UJ et al (2014) Closing in on the k edge: coronary CT angiography at 100, 80, and 70 kv—initial comparison of a second- versus a third-generation dual-source ct system. Radiology 273(2):373-382. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14140244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of British Columbia/ Vancouver General Hospital, 899 W 12th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada

    Waleed Abdellatif, Jennifer Powell, Gordon Andrews & Savvas Nicolaou

  2. Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 317 - 2194 Health Sciences Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z3, BC, Canada

    Eric Esslinger, Kevin Kobes & Amanda Wong

  3. Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Ismail Tawakol Ali

Authors
  1. Waleed Abdellatif
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric Esslinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kevin Kobes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amanda Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jennifer Powell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ismail Tawakol Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gordon Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Savvas Nicolaou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Waleed Abdellatif.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Savvas Nicolaou.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Dr. Savvas Nicolaou and the University of British Columbia have master research agreement with Siemens Healthcare.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study because it is a retrospective imaging study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• Retrospective

• Cross-sectional study

• Performed at one institution

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdellatif, W., Esslinger, E., Kobes, K. et al. Acquisition time, radiation dose, subjective and objective image quality of dual-source CT scanners in acute pulmonary embolism: a comparative study. Eur Radiol 30, 2712–2721 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06650-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06650-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation