Appropriate patient selection at abdominal dual-energy CT using 80 kV: Relationship between patient size, image noise, and image quality

Radiology

Volumn 257, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 732-742

  Guimarães, Luís S ^a,b   Fletcher, Joel G ^a   Harmsen, William S ^a   Yu, Lifeng ^a   Siddiki, Hassan ^a   Melton, Zachary ^a   Huprich, James E ^a   Hough, David ^a   Hartman, Robert ^a   McCollough, Cynthia H ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^b Hospital S Teotonio   (Portugal)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; BODY MASS; BODY SURFACE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; KIDNEY; LEAN BODY WEIGHT; LIVER; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD; MULTIVARIATE LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; NOISE REDUCTION; PANCREAS; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SELECTION; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIOGRAPHY, ABDOMINAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 78649653575     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10092016     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Funama Y, Awai K, Nakayama Y, et al. Radiation dose reduction without degradation of low-contrast detectability at abdominal multisection CT with a low-tube voltage technique: phantom study. Radiology 2005;237(3):905-910.
2. Nakayama Y, Awai K, Funama Y, et al. Abdominal CT with low tube voltage: preliminary observations about radiation dose, contrast enhancement, image quality, and noise. Radiology 2005;237(3):945-951.
3. Schindera ST, Nelson RC, Mukundan S Jr, et al. Hypervascular liver tumors: low tube voltage, high tube current multi-detector row CT for enhanced detection - phantom study. Radiology 2008;246(1):125-132.
4. Ende JF, Huda W, Ros PR, Litwiller AL. Image mottle in abdominal CT. Invest Radiol 1999;34(4):282-286.
5. Huda W, Lieberman KA, Chang J, Roskopf ML. Patient size and x-ray technique factors in head computed tomography examinations. II. Image quality. Med Phys 2004;31(3):595-601.
6. Nickoloff EL, Dutta AK, Lu ZF. Influence of phantom diameter, kVp and scan mode upon computed tomography dose index. Med Phys 2003;30(3):395-402.
7. Szucs-Farkas Z, Verdun FR, von Allmen G, Mini RL, Vock P. Effect of X-ray tube parameters, iodine concentration, and patient size on image quality in pulmonary computed tomography angiography: a chest-phantom-study. Invest Radiol 2008;43(6):374-381.
8. Huda W, Lieberman KA, Chang J, Roskopf ML. Patient size and x-ray technique factors in head computed tomography examinations. I. Radiation doses. Med Phys 2004;31(3):588-594.
9. Sigal-Cinqualbre AB, Hennequin R, Abada HT, Chen X, Paul JF. Low-kilovoltage multi-detector row chest CT in adults: feasibility and effect on image quality and iodine dose. Radiology 2004;231(1):169-174.
10. Nakayama Y, Awai K, Funama Y, et al. Lower tube voltage reduces contrast material and radiation doses on 16-MDCT aortography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187(5):W490-W497.
11. Flohr TG, McCollough CH, Bruder H, et al. First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system. Eur Radiol 2006;16(2):256-268.
12. Graser A, Johnson TR, Chandarana H, Macari M. Dual energy CT: preliminary observations and potential clinical applications in the abdomen. Eur Radiol 2009;19(1):13-23.
13. Johnson TR, Krauss B, Sedlmair M, et al. Material differentiation by dual energy CT: initial experience. Eur Radiol 2007;17(6):1510-1517.
14. Primak AN, Fletcher JG, Vrtiska TJ, et al. Noninvasive differentiation of uric acid versus non-uric acid kidney stones using dual-energy CT. Acad Radiol 2007;14(12):1441-1447.
15. Warp RJ, Dobbins JT 3rd. Quantitative evaluation of noise reduction strategies in dual-energy imaging. Med Phys 2003;30(2):190-198.
16. Fletcher JG, Takahashi N, Hartman R, et al. Dual-energy and dual-source CT: is there a role in the abdomen and pelvis? Radiol Clin North Am 2009;47(1):41-57.
17. Siegel MJ, Schmidt B, Bradley D, Suess C, Hildebolt C. Radiation dose and image quality in pediatric CT: effect of technical factors and phantom size and shape. Radiology 2004;233(2):515-522.
18. Mosteller RD. Simplified calculation of body-surface area. N Engl J Med 1987;317(17):1098.
19. Lam TK, Leung DT. More on simplified calculation of body-surface area. N Engl J Med 1988;318(17):1130.
20. Hsieh J. Adaptive streak artifact reduction in computed tomography resulting from excessive x-ray photon noise. Med Phys 1998;25(11):2139-2147.
21. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33(1):159-174.
22. Guimaraes L, Fidler JL, Ehman EC, et al. Can we drop the 140 kV for hepatic mass lesion detection at contrast-enhanced, dualenergy hepatic CT? [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2009;538-539.
23. Macari M, Spieler B, Kim D, et al. Dual-source dual-energy MDCT of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: initial observations with data generated at 80 kVp and at simulated weighted-average 120 kVp. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194(1):W27-W32.
24. Robinson E, Babb JS, Chandarana H, Godoy MCB, Megibow AJ, Macari M. Dual-source dual-energy MDCT: comparison of 80 kVp and weighted average 120 kVp data for conspicuity of hypovascular liver metastases [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2009;538.
25. Eusemann C, Apel A, Schmidt B, et al. An on-line cross-scatter correction algorithm for dual-source CT (DSCT): effects on CT number accuracy and noise. In: Ehsan S, Hsieh J, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2009 - Physics of medical imaging. Vol 7258. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2009;725837-725837-9.
26. Hara AK, Paden RG, Silva AC, Kujak JL, Lawder HJ, Pavlicek W. Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(3):764-771.
27. Thibault JB, Sauer KD, Bouman CA, Hsieh J. A three-dimensional statistical approach to improved image quality for multislice helical CT. Med Phys 2007;34(11):4526-4544.
28. Manduca A, Yu L, Trzasko JD, et al. Projection space denoising with bilateral filtering and CT noise modeling for dose reduction in CT. Med Phys 2009;36(11):4911-4919.
29. Ehman E, Guimaraes L, Fidler J, et al. Low kV imaging with projection space denoising to significantly reduce radiation dose and preserve lesion conspicuity and image quality at hepatic CT. Presented at the Abdominal Radiology Course of the Society of Gastrointestinal Radiologists, Orlando, Fla, February 21-26, 2010.
30. Paulsen S, Takahashi N, Kawashima A, et al. Multi-reader evaluation of renal masses using low kV (80-kV) CT urography (CTU): potential for dose reduction and structural characterization using projection space denoising. Presented at the Abdominal Radiology Course of the Society of Gastrointestinal Radiologists, Orlando, Fla, February 21-26, 2010.