Automatic selection of tube potential for radiation dose reduction in vascular and contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 201, Issue 2, 2013, Pages

  Yu, Lifeng ^a   Fletcher, Joel G ^a   Grant, Katharine L ^b   Carter, Rickey E ^a   Hough, David M ^a   Barlow, John M ^a   Vrtiska, Terri J ^a   Williamson, Eric E ^a   Young, Phillip M ^a   Goss, Brian C ^a   Shiung, Maria ^a   Leng, Shuai ^a   Raupach, Ranier ^b   Schmidt, Bernhard ^b   Flohr, Thomas ^b   McCollough, Cynthia H ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^b SIEMENS AG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Abdominal CT; CT; CT angiography; CT protocol optimization; Radiation dose reduction; Tube potential

Indexed keywords

IODINATED CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ABDOMINAL RADIOGRAPHY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; AUTOMATIC TUBE POTENTIAL SELECTION TOOL; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PELVIS RADIOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE REDUCTION; RADIODIAGNOSIS; RADIOLOGIST; RATING SCALE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; TUBE;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANGIOGRAPHY; ARTIFACTS; AUTOMATION; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIOGRAPHY, ABDOMINAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84883718004     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.9610     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements. NCRP report No. 160: Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements, 2009
2. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography: An increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007; 357:2277-2284
3. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. AAPM CT dose summit: Scan parameter optimization. www.aapm.org/meetings/2010CTS/default. asp. Published 2010. Accessed January 10, 2011
4. Hendee WR, Becker GJ, Borgstede JP, et al. Addressing overutilization in medical imaging. Radiology 2010; 257:240-245
5. McCollough CH, Primak AN, Braun N, Kofler J, Yu L, Christner J. Strategies for reducing radiation dose in CT. Radiol Clin North Am 2009; 47:27-40
6. Gies M, Kalender WA, Wolf H, Suess C. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. Part I. Simulation studies. Med Phys 1999; 26:2235-2247
7. Kalender WA, Wolf H, Suess C. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. Part II. Phantom measurements. Med Phys 1999; 26:2248-2253
8. Kalra MK, Naz N, Rizzo SM, Blake MA. Computed tomography radiation dose optimization: Scanning protocols and clinical applications of automatic exposure control. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2005; 34:171-181
9. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004; 230:619-628
10. McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM Jr. CT dose reduction and dose management tools: Overview of available options. RadioGraphics 2006; 26:503-512
11. Huda W, Scalzetti EM, Levin G. Technique factors and image quality as functions of patient weight at abdominal CT. Radiology 2000; 217:430-435
12. Boone JM, Geraghty EM, Seibert JA, Wootton- Gorges SL. Dose reduction in pediatric CT: A rational approach. Radiology 2003; 228:352-360
13. 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; 233:515-522
14. Cody DD, Moxley DM, Krugh KT, O'Daniel JC, Wagner LK, Eftekhari F. Strategies for formulating appropriate MDCT techniques when imaging the chest, abdomen, and pelvis in pediatric patients. AJR 2004; 182:849-859
15. Ertl-Wagner BB, Hoffmann RT, Bruning R, et al. Multi-detector row CT angiography of the brain at various kilovoltage settings. Radiology 2004; 231:528-535
16. 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; 231:169-174
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. McCollough CH. Automatic exposure control in CT: Are we done yet? Radiology 2005; 237:755-756
19. Frush DP, Herlong JR. Pediatric thoracic CT angiography. Pediatr Radiol 2005; 35:11-25
20. Wintersperger B, Jakobs T, Herzog P, et al. Aortoiliac multidetector-row CT angiography with low kV settings: Improved vessel enhancement and simultaneous reduction of radiation dose. Eur Radiol 2005; 15:334-341
21. Holmquist F, Nyman U. Eighty-peak kilovoltage 16-channel multidetector computed tomography and reduced contrast-medium doses tailored to body weight to diagnose pulmonary embolism in azotaemic patients. Eur Radiol 2006; 16:1165-1176
22. Schueller-Weidekamm C, Schaefer-Prokop CM, Weber M, Herold CJ, Prokop M. CT angiography of pulmonary arteries to detect pulmonary embolism: Improvement of vascular enhancement with low kilovoltage settings. Radiology 2006; 241: 899-907
23. Waaijer A, Prokop M, Velthuis BK, Bakker CJ, de Kort GA, van Leeuwen MS. Circle of Willis at CT angiography: Dose reduction and image quality- reducing tube voltage and increasing tube current settings. Radiology 2007; 242:832-839
24. Kalva SP, Sahani DV, Hahn PF, Saini S. 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
25. Huda W, Ogden KM, Khorasani MR. Effect of dose metrics and radiation risk models when optimizing CT x-ray tube voltage. Phys Med Biol 2008; 53:4719-4732
26. Frush DP. Pediatric abdominal CT angiography. Pediatr Radiol 2008; 38(suppl 2):S259-S266
27. Leschka S, Stolzmann P, Schmid FT, et al. Low kilovoltage cardiac dual-source CT: Attenuation, noise, and radiation dose. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 1809-1817
28. Guimarães LS, Fletcher JG, Harmsen WS, et al. Appropriate patient selection at abdominal dualenergy CT using 80 kV: Relationship between patient size, image noise, and image quality. Radiology 2010; 257:732-742
29. Alkadhi H, Schindera ST. State of the art lowdose CT angiography of the body. Eur J Radiol 2011; 80:36-40
30. Yu L, Li H, Fletcher JG, McCollough CH. Automatic selection of tube potential for radiation dose reduction in CT: A general strategy. Med Phys 2010; 37:234-243
31. Yu L, Bruesewitz MR, Thomas KB, Fletcher JG, Kofler JM, McCollough CH. Optimal tube potential for radiation dose reduction in pediatric CT: Principles, clinical implementations, and pitfalls. RadioGraphics 2011; 31:835-848
32. Sodickson A. Strategies for reducing radiation exposure in multi-detector row CT. Radiol Clin North Am 2012; 50:1-14
33. Marin D, Nelson RC, Rubin GD, Schindera ST, Body CT: Technical advances for improving safety. AJR 2011; 197:33-41
34. Kalender WA, Deak P, Kellermeier M, van Straten M, Vollmar SV. Application- and patient size-dependent optimization of x-ray spectra for CT. Med Phys 2009; 36:993-1007
35. Singh S, Kalra MK, Moore MA, et al. Dose reduction and compliance with pediatric CT protocols adapted to patient size, clinical indication, and number of prior studies. Radiology 2009; 252:200-208
36. Winklehner A, Goetti R, Baumueller S, et al. Automated attenuation-based tube potential selection for thoracoabdominal computed tomography angiography improved dose effectiveness. InvestRadiol 2011; 46:767-773
37. Hough DM, Fletcher JG, Grant KL, et al. Lowering kilovoltage to reduce radiation dose in contrast- enhanced abdominal CT: Initial assessment of a prototype automatic kilovoltage selection tool. AJR 2012; 199:1070-1077
38. Nakaura T, Awai K, Maruyama N, et al. Abdominal dynamic CT in patients with renal dysfunction: Contrast agent dose reduction with low tube voltage and high tube current-time product settings at 256-detector row CT. Radiology 2011; 261:467-476
39. Hough DM, Yu L, Shiung M, et al. Individualization of abdominopelvic CT protocols with lower tube voltage to reduce IV contrast dose or radiation dose. AJR 2013; 201:147-153
40. McCollough CH, Leng S, Yu L, Cody DD, Boone J, McNitt-Gray MF. CT dose index and patient dose: They are not the same thing. Radiology 2011; 259:311-316
41. Thibault JB, Sauer KD, Bouman CA, Hsieh J. A three-dimensional statistical approach to improved image quality for multislice helical CT. Med Phys 2007; 34:4526-4544
42. 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 2009; 193:764-771
43. Marin D, Nelson RC, Schindera ST, et al. Lowtube- 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
44. Winklehner A, Karlo C, Puippe G, et al. Raw data- based iterative reconstruction in body CTA: Evaluation of radiation dose saving potential. Eur Radiol 2011; 21:2521-2526
45. Funama Y, Taguchi K, Utsunomiya D, et al. Combination of a low-tube-voltage technique with hybrid iterative reconstruction (iDose) algorithm at coronary computed tomographic angiography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2011; 35:480-485
46. Ehman EC, Guimaraes LS, Fidler JL, et al. Noise reduction to decrease radiation dose and improve conspicuity of hepatic lesions at contrast-enhanced 80-kV hepatic CT using projection space denoising. AJR 2012; 198:405-411