Automatic exposure control at MDCT based on the contrast-to-noise ratio: Theoretical background and phantom study

Physica Medica

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 39-47

  Funama, Yoshinori ^a   Sugaya, Yoshiaki ^b   Miyazaki, Osamu ^b   Utsunomiya, Daisuke ^c   Yamashita, Yasuyuki ^c   Awai, Kazuo ^d  

^a KUMAMOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b HITACHI LTD   (Japan)

^c KUMAMOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^d HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

AEC; Contrast to noise ratio; Lesion detectability; Radiation dose

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; AUTOMATIC EXPOSURE CONTROL; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIOLOGIST; RADIOLOGY PHANTOM; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC;

ALGORITHMS; AUTOMATION; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84871752785     PISSN: 11201797     EISSN: 1724191X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2011.11.004     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Haaga J.R., Miraldi F., MacIntyre W., LiPuma J.P., Bryan P.J., Wiesen E. The effect of mAs variation upon computed tomography image quality as evaluated by in vivo and in vitro studies. Radiology 1981, 138:449-454.
2. Gies M., Kalender W.A., Wolf H., Suess C. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. I. Simulation studies. Med Phys 1999, 26:2235-2247.
3. 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.
4. Starck G., Lonn L., Cederblad A., Forssell-Aronsson E., Sjostrom L., Alpsten M. A method to obtain the same levels of CT image noise for patients of various sizes, to minimize radiation dose. Br J Radiol 2002, 75:140-150.
5. Kalra M.K., Maher M.M., Kamath R.S., Horiuchi T., Toth T.L., Halpern E.F., et al. Sixteen-detector row CT of abdomen and pelvis: study for optimization of Z-axis modulation technique performed in 153 patients. Radiology 2004, 233:241-249.
6. Kalra M.K., Maher M.M., Toth T.L., Kamath R.S., Halpern E.F., Saini S. Comparison of Z-axis automatic tube current modulation technique with fixed tube current CT scanning of abdomen and pelvis. Radiology 2004, 232:347-353.
7. Kalra M.K., Rizzo S., Maher M.M., Halpern E.F., Toth T.L., Shepard J.A., et al. Chest CT performed with z-axis modulation: scanning protocol and radiation dose. Radiology 2005, 237:303-308.
8. Kalra M.K., Maher M.M., Toth T.L., Schmidt B., Westerman B.L., Morgan H.T., et al. Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology 2004, 233:649-657.
9. Kalra M.K., Maher M.M., Toth T.L., Hamberg L.M., Blake M.A., Shepard J.A., et al. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004, 230:619-628.
10. Awai K., Takada K., Onishi H., Hori S. 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.
11. Kalender W.A., Deak P., Kellermeier M., van Straten M., Vollmar S.V. Application- and patient size-dependent optimization of x-ray spectra for CT. Med Phys 2009, 36:993-1007.
12. Brisse H.J., Brenot J., Pierrat N., Gaboriaud G., Savignoni A., De Rycke Y., et al. The relevance of image quality indices for dose optimization in abdominal multi-detector row CT in children: experimental assessment with pediatric phantoms. Phys Med Biol 2009, 54:1871-1892.
13. 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.
14. Boone J.M., Geraghty E.M., Seibert J.A., Wootton-Gorges S.L. Dose reduction in pediatric CT: a rational approach. Radiology 2003, 228:352-360.
15. Funama Y., Awai K., Miyazaki O., Nakayama Y., Liu D., Goto T., et al. A computer-simulated liver phantom (virtual liver phantom) for multidetector computed tomography evaluation. Eur Radiol 2006, 16:837-845.
16. Gupta A.K., Nelson R.C., Johnson G.A., Paulson E.K., Delong D.M., Yoshizumi T.T. Optimization of eight-element multi-detector row helical CT technology for evaluation of the abdomen. Radiology 2003, 227:739-745.
17. Verdun F.R., Denys A., Valley J.F., Schnyder P., Meuli R.A. Detection of low-contrast objects: experimental comparison of single- and multi-detector row CT with a phantom. Radiology 2002, 223:426-431.
18. Abdelmoumene A., Chevallier P., Chalaron M., Schneider F., Verdun F.R., Frascarolo P., et al. Detection of liver metastases under 2 cm: comparison of different acquisition protocols in four row multidetector-CT (MDCT). Eur Radiol 2005, 15:1881-1887.
19. Hu H., Fox S.H. The effect of helical pitch and beam collimation on the lesion contrast and slice profile in helical CT imaging. Med Phys 1996, 23:1943-1954.
20. Warren R.C., Pandya Y.V. Effect of window width and viewing distance in CT display. Br J Radiol 1982, 55:72-74.
21. Funama Y., Awai K., Nakayama Y., Kakei K., Nagasue N., Shimamura M., 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.
22. Baron R.L. Understanding and optimizing use of contrast material for CT of the liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994, 163:323-331.
23. Yanaga Y., Awai K., Nakaura T., Namimoto T., Oda S., Funama Y., et al. Optimal contrast dose for depiction of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma at dynamic CT using 64-MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008, 190:1003-1009.
24. Judy P.F., Swensson R.G., Nawfel R.D., Chan K.H., Seltzer S.E. Contrast-detail curves for liver CT. Med Phys 1992, 19:1167-1174.
25. Awai K., Inoue M., Yagyu Y., Watanabe M., Sano T., Nin S., 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.