Optimal Setting of Automatic Exposure Control Based on Image Noise and Contrast on Iodine-enhanced CT

Academic Radiology

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 478-484

  Murazaki, Hiroo ^a   Funama, Yoshinori ^b   Sugaya, Yoshiaki ^c   Miyazaki, Osamu ^c   Tomiguchi, Seiji ^b   Awai, Kazuo ^d  

^a KUMAMOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b KUMAMOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^c HITACHI LTD   (Japan)

^d HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Automatic exposure control; Contrast; Image noise; Iodine enhanced scan; X ray tube output

Indexed keywords

IODINE;

ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; LIVER NODULE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; X RAY ANALYSIS;

CONTRAST MEDIA; FEEDBACK; HUMANS; IODINE; LIVER; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84858795368     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: 18784046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.11.011     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Greess H., Wolf H., Baum U., et al. Dose reduction in computed tomography by attenuation-based on-line modulation of tube current: evaluation of six anatomical regions. Eur Radiol 2000, 10:391-394.
2. Kalender W.A., Wolf H., Suess C. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. II. Phantom measurements. Med Phys 1999, 26:2248-2253.
3. Kalra M.K., Maher M.M., Toth T.L., et al. Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology 2004, 233:649-657.
4. McCollough C.H., Bruesewitz M.R., Kofler J.M. CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. Radiographics 2006, 26:503-512.
5. Mulkens T.H., Bellinck P., Baeyaert M., et al. Use of an automatic exposure control mechanism for dose optimization in multi-detector row CT examinations: clinical evaluation. Radiology 2005, 237:213-223.
6. Huda W., Scalzetti E.M., Levin G. Technique factors and image quality as functions of patient weight at abdominal CT. Radiology 2000, 217:430-435.
7. Huda W. Dose and image quality in CT. Pediatr Radiol 2002, 32:709-713.
8. Kalva S.P., Sahani D.V., Hahn P.F., et al. Using the K-edge to improve contrast conspicuity and to lower radiation dose with a 16-MDCT: a phantom and human study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006, 30:391-397.
9. Kalra M.K., Maher M.M., Toth T.L., et al. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004, 230:619-628.
10. Yu L., Li H., Fletcher J.G., et al. Automatic selection of tube potential for radiation dose reduction in CT: a general strategy. Med Phys 2010, 37:234-243.
11. Kim T., Murakami T., Takahashi S., et al. Optimal phases of dynamic CT for detecting hepatocellular carcinoma: evaluation of unenhanced and triple-phase images. Abdom Imaging 1999, 24:473-480.
12. 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, 237:945-951.
13. Awai K., Inoue M., Yagyu Y., et al. Moderate versus high concentration of contrast material for aortic and hepatic enhancement and tumor-to-liver contrast at multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2004, 233:682-688.
14. Awai K., Takada K., Onishi H., et al. Aortic and hepatic enhancement and tumor-to-liver contrast: analysis of the effect of different concentrations of contrast material at multi-detector row helical CT. Radiology 2002, 224:757-763.
15. Gupta A.K., Nelson R.C., Johnson G.A., et al. Optimization of eight-element multi-detector row helical CT technology for evaluation of the abdomen. Radiology 2003, 227:739-745.
16. Kalender W.A., Deak P., Kellermeier M., et al. Application- and patient size-dependent optimization of x-ray spectra for CT. Med Phys 2009, 36:993-1007.
17. 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, 237:905-910.
18. Marin D., Nelson R.C., Schindera S.T., et al. Low-tube-voltage, high-tube-current multidetector abdominal CT: improved image quality and decreased radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm-initial clinical experience. Radiology 2010, 254:145-153.
19. Schindera S.T., Nelson R.C., Mukundan S., et al. Hypervascular liver tumors: low tube voltage, high tube current multi-detector row CT for enhanced detection-phantom study. Radiology 2008, 246:125-132.
20. Marin D., Nelson R.C., Samei E., et al. Hypervascular liver tumors: low tube voltage, high tube current multidetector CT during late hepatic arterial phase for detection-initial clinical experience. Radiology 2009, 251:771-779.
21. Siegel M.J., Schmidt B., Bradley D., et al. Radiation dose and image quality in pediatric CT: effect of technical factors and phantom size and shape. Radiology 2004, 233:515-522.
22. Boone J.M., Geraghty E.M., Seibert J.A., et al. Dose reduction in pediatric CT: a rational approach. Radiology 2003, 228:352-360.