Optimization of scanning parameters for multi-slice CT colonography: Experiments with synthetic and animal phantoms

Clinical Radiology

Volumn 58, Issue 12, 2003, Pages 955-963

  Embleton, K V ^a   Nicholson, D A ^b   Hufton, A P ^c   Jackson, A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b HOPE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c CHRISTIE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Colon; Colon neoplasms; Computed tomography; Phantoms

Indexed keywords

PLASTIC;

ADIPOSE TISSUE; AIR; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; BODY POSTURE; COLLIMATOR; COLON; COLON POLYP; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; CONTRAST; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRICITY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EXCISION; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; IMAGING SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTESTINE MUCOSA; MEASUREMENT; MEDICAL RECORD; MUSCLE; NONHUMAN; PERFORMANCE; PHANTOM; PITCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; SCREENING TEST; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SUPINE POSITION; SWINE; SYMPTOMATOLOGY; TISSUE TYPES;

EID: 0348134469     PISSN: 00099260     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0009-9260(03)00297-6     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Luboldt W, Fletcher JG, Vogl TJ. Colonography: current status, research directions and challenges. Update 2002. Eur Radiol, 2002;12: 502-524.
2. Summers RM, Hara AK, Luboldt W, Johnson CD. Computed tomographic and magnetic resonance colonography: summary of progress from 1995 to 2000. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol, 2001;30: 147-167.
3. Macari M, et al. Colorectal neoplasms: prospective comparison of thin-section low-dose multi-detector row CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection. Radiology, 2002;224:383-392.
4. Power NP, Pryor MD, Martin A, et al. Optimization of scanning parameters for CT colonography. Br J Radiol, 2002;75:401-408.
5. Hara AK, Johnson CD, MacCarty RL, et al. CT colonography: single versus multi-detector row imaging. Radiology, 2001;219:461-465.
6. McCollough CH. Optimization of multidetector array CT acquisition parameters for CT colonography. Abdom Imaging, 2002;27:253-259.
7. Hara AK, Johnson CD, Reed JE, et al. Reducing data size and radiation dose for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1997; 168: 1181-1184.
8. Hart D, Wall BF. Radiation exposure of the UK population from medical and dental x-ray examinations. NRPB Report NRPB-W4 2002 NRPB, Chilton, Oxon.
9. Chen SC, Lu DSK, Hecht JR, Kadell BM. CT colonography: value of scanning in both the supine and prone positions. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1999;172:595-599.
10. Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Welch TJ, et al. Optimization of CT colonography technique: prospective trial in 180 patients. Radiology, 2000;216:704-711.
11. Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, et al. Feasibility of ultra-low-dose multislice CT colonography for the detection of colorectal lesions: preliminary experience. Eur Radiol, 2003;14:1297-1302.
12. Vokurka EA, Watson NA, Watson Y, et al. Improved high resolution MR imaging for surface coils using automated intensity non-uniformity correction: feasibility study in the orbit. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2001; 14:540-546.
13. Ferrucci JT. Colon cancer screening with virtual colonoscopy: promise, polyps, politics. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2001;177:975-988.
14. Nusko G, Mansmann U, Partzsch U, et al. Invasive carcinoma in colorectal adenomas: multivariate analysis of patient and adenoma characteristics. Endoscopy, 1997;29:626-631.
15. Fletcher JG, Luboldt W. CT colonography and MR colonography: current status, research directions and comparison. Eur Radiol, 2000; 10:786-801.
16. Macari M, Megibow AJ. Pitfalls of using three-dimensional CT colonography with two-dimensional imaging correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2001;176:137-143.
17. Macari M, Milano A, Lavelle M, et al. Comparison of time-efficient CT colonography with two-and three-dimensional colonic evaluation for detecting colorectal polyps. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2000; 174: 1543-1549.
18. Robinson P, Burnett H, Nicholson DA. The use of minimal preparation computed tomography for the primary investigation of colon cancer in frail or elderly patients. Clin Radiol, 2002;57:389-392.
19. Levine MS, Glick SN, Rubesin SE, Laufer I. Double-contrast barium enema examination and colorectal cancer: a plea for radiologic screening. Radiology, 2002;222:313-315.
20. McLeod RS, Am CT. Screening strategies for colorectal cancer: a systematic review of the evidence. Can J Gastroenterol, 2001;15: 647-660.
21. Diederich S, Lenzen H, Windmann R, et al. Pulmonary nodules: experimental and clinical studies at low-dose CT. Radiology, 1999;213: 289-298.
22. Diederich S, Lenzen H. Radiation exposure associated with imaging of the chest: comparison of different radiographic and computed tomography techniques. Cancer, 2000;89(Suppl.):2457-2460.
23. Van Gelder RE, Stoker J, Venema HW, et al. Feasibility of radiation dose reduction for virtual colonoscopy. Radiology, 2000;217:1559.
24. Van Gelder RE, Venema HW, Serlie I, et al. CT colonography at different radiation dose levels: feasibility of dose reduction. Radiology, 2002;224:25-33.
25. Rydberg J, Buckwalter KA, Caldemeyer KS, et al. Multisection CT: scanning techniques and clinical applications. RadioGraphics, 2000;20: 1787-1806.