Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Automated tube potential selection for standard chest and abdominal CT in follow-up patients with testicular cancer: comparison with fixed tube potential

  • Computed Tomography
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate prospectively, in patients with testicular cancer, the radiation dose-saving potential and image quality of contrast-enhanced chest and abdominal CT with automated tube potential selection.

Methods

Forty consecutive patients with testicular cancer underwent contrast-enhanced arterio-venous chest and portal-venous abdominal CT with automated tube potential selection (protocol B; tube potential 80–140 kVp), which is based on the attenuation of the CT topogram. All had a first CT at 120 kVp (protocol A) using the same 64-section CT machine and similar settings. Image quality was assessed; dose information (CTDIvol) was noted.

Results

Image noise and attenuation in the liver and spleen were significantly higher for protocol B (P < 0.05 each), whereas attenuation in the deltoid and erector spinae muscles was similar. In protocol B, tube potential was reduced to 100 kVp in 18 chest and 33 abdominal examinations, and to 80 kVp in 5 abdominal CT examinations; it increased to 140 kVp in one patient. Image quality of examinations using both CT protocols was rated as diagnostic. CTDIvol was significantly lower for protocol B compared to protocol A (reduction by 12%, P < 0.01).

Conclusion

In patients with testicular cancer, radiation dose of chest and abdominal CT can be reduced with automated tube potential selection, while image quality is preserved.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shah MN, Devesa SS, Zhu K, McGlynn KA (2007) Trends in testicular germ cell tumours by ethnic group in the United States. Int J Androl 30:206–213, discussion 213–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Huddart RA, Birtle AJ (2005) Recent advances in the treatment of testicular cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 5:123–138

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Albers P, Albrecht W, Algaba F et al (2005) Guidelines on testicular cancer. Eur Urol 48:885–894

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schmoll HJ, Jordan K, Huddart R et al (2010) Testicular seminoma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 21:v140–v146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Amis ES Jr, Butler PF (2010) ACR white paper on radiation dose in medicine: three years later. J Am Coll Radiol 7:865–870

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sodickson A, Baeyens PF, Andriole KP et al (2009) Recurrent CT, cumulative radiation exposure, and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from CT of adults. Radiology 251:175–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT et al (2003) Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:13761–13766

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL et al (2004) Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology 233:649–657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Huda W, Scalzetti EM, Levin G (2000) Technique factors and image quality as functions of patient weight at abdominal CT. Radiology 217:430–435

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Winklehner A, Goetti R, Baumueller S et al (2011) Automated attenuation-based tube potential selection for thoracoabdominal computed tomography angiography: improved dose effectiveness. Invest Radiol 46:767–773

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Radiology DSo (1998) European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. http://www.drs.dk/guidelines/ct/quality/index.htm

  12. May MS, Wust W, Brand M et al (2011) Dose reduction in abdominal computed tomography: intraindividual comparison of image quality of full-dose standard and half-dose iterative reconstructions with dual-source computed tomography. Invest Radiol 46:465–470

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. AAPM Task Group 23 of the Diagnostic Imaging Council CT Committee (2008) The measurement, reporting, and management of radiation dose in CT. The American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park, MD

  14. Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M (2006) National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003. Br J Radiol 79:968–980

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pontana F, Pagniez J, Flohr T et al (2011) Chest computed tomography using iterative reconstruction vs filtered back projection (Part 1): evaluation of image noise reduction in 32 patients. Eur Radiol 21:627–635

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Winklehner A, Karlo C, Puippe G et al (2011) Raw data-based iterative reconstruction in body CTA: evaluation of radiation dose saving potential. Eur Radiol 21:2521–2526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mitsumori LM, Shuman WP, Busey JM, Kolokythas O, Koprowicz KM (2012) Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction versus filtered back projection in the same patient: 64 channel liver CT image quality and patient radiation dose. Eur Radiol 22:138–143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gnannt R, Winklehner A, Goetti R, Schmidt B, Kollias S, Alkadhi H (2012) Low kilovoltage CT of the neck with 70  kVp: comparison with a standard protocol. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2910

  19. Nakayama Y, Awai K, Funama Y et al (2006) Lower tube voltage reduces contrast material and radiation doses on 16-MDCT aortography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:W490–W497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yu L, Li H, Fletcher JG, McCollough CH (2010) Automatic selection of tube potential for radiation dose reduction in CT: a general strategy. Med Phys 37:234–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Alkadhi H, Schindera ST (2011) State of the art low-dose CT angiography of the body. Eur J Radiol 80:36–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Leschka S, Stolzmann P, Schmid FT et al (2008) Low kilovoltage cardiac dual-source CT: attenuation, noise, and radiation dose. Eur Radiol 18:1809–1817

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wintersperger B, Jakobs T, Herzog P et al (2005) Aorto-iliac multidetector-row CT angiography with low kV settings: improved vessel enhancement and simultaneous reduction of radiation dose. Eur Radiol 15:334–341

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Schindera ST, Graca P, Patak MA et al (2009) Thoracoabdominal-aortoiliac multidetector-row CT angiography at 80 and 100  kVp: assessment of image quality and radiation dose. Invest Radiol 44:650–655

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Marin D, Nelson RC, Barnhart H et al (2010) Detection of pancreatic tumors, image quality, and radiation dose during the pancreatic parenchymal phase: effect of a low-tube-voltage, high-tube-current CT technique—preliminary results. Radiology 256:450–459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Marin D, Nelson RC, Samei E et al (2009) Hypervascular liver tumors: low tube voltage, high tube current multidetector CT during late hepatic arterial phase for detection—initial clinical experience. Radiology 251:771–779

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hansen J, Jurik AG (2009) Diagnostic value of multislice computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of retroperitoneal spread of testicular cancer: a literature review. Acta Radiol 50:1064–1070

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, CH-8091, Zurich, Switzerland

    Ralph Gnannt, Anna Winklehner, Thomas Frauenfelder & Hatem Alkadhi

  2. Clinic for Urology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Daniel Eberli

  3. Clinic for Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Alexander Knuth

Authors
  1. Ralph Gnannt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Winklehner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel Eberli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexander Knuth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thomas Frauenfelder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hatem Alkadhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hatem Alkadhi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gnannt, R., Winklehner, A., Eberli, D. et al. Automated tube potential selection for standard chest and abdominal CT in follow-up patients with testicular cancer: comparison with fixed tube potential. Eur Radiol 22, 1937–1945 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2453-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2453-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation