Dose-modified 256-MDCT of the abdomen using low tube current and hybrid iterative reconstruction

Academic Radiology

Volumn 20, Issue 11, 2013, Pages 1405-1412

  Fuentes Orrego, Jorge M ^a   Hayano, Koichi ^a   Kambadakone, Avinash R ^a   Hahn, Peter F ^a   Sahani, Dushyant V ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Abdomen; Computed tomography; Image quality; Iterative reconstruction; Radiation dose

Indexed keywords

BARIUM SULFATE; IOPAMIDOL;

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING PHANTOM; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; NOISE REDUCTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOLOGY PHANTOM;

ABDOMEN; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; IMAGE QUALITY; ITERATIVE RECONSTRUCTION; RADIATION DOSE;

CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RADIOGRAPHY, ABDOMINAL;

EID: 84885341439     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: 18784046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2013.08.004     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Boone J.M. Multidetector CT opportunities, challenges, and concerns associated with scanners with 64 or more detector rows. Radiology 2006, 241:334-337.
2. Brenner D.J., Hall E.J. Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007, 357:2277-2284.
3. Berrington de González A., Mahesh M., Kim K., et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 2009, 169:2071-2077.
4. Thrall J.H. Radiation exposure in CT scanning and risk: where are we?. Radiology 2012, 264:325-328.
5. Lee S.J., Park S.H., Kim A.Y., et al. A prospective comparison of standard-dose CT enterography and 50% reduced-dose CT enterography with and without noise reduction for evaluating Crohn disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011, 197:50-57.
6. Fleischmann D., Boas F.E. Computed tomography-old ideas and new technology. Eur Radiol 2011, 21:510-517.
7. Schindera S.T., Diedrichsen L., Müller H.C., et al. Iterative reconstruction algorithm for abdominal multidetector CT at different tube voltages: assessment of diagnostic accuracy, image quality, and radiation dose in a phantom study. Radiology 2011, 260:454-462.
8. 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.
9. Prakash P., Kalra M.K., Kambadakone A.K., et al. Reducing abdominal CT radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Invest Radiol 2010, 45:202-210.
10. Pickhardt P.J., Lubner M.H., Kim D.H., et al. Abdominal CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012, 199:1-9.
11. Kalra M.K., Woisetschläger M., Dahlström N., et al. Radiation dose reduction with sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction technique for abdominal computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2012, 36:339-346.
12. Nakaura T., Awaki 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.
13. Nakaura T., Nakamura S., Maruyama N., et al. Low contrast agent and radiation dose protocol for hepatic dynamic CT of thin adults at 256-detector row CT: effect of low tube voltage and hybrid iterative reconstruction algorithm on image quality. Radiology 2012, 264:445-454.
14. Guimarães L.S., Fletcher J.G., Harmsen W.S., et al. Appropriate patient selection at abdominal dual-energy CT using 80 kV: relationship between patient size, image noise, and image quality. Radiology 2010, 257:732-742.
15. Zalis M.E., Perumpillichira J.J., Kim J.Y., et al. Polyp Size at CT colonography after electronic subtraction cleansing in an anthropomorphic colon phantom. Radiology 2005, 236:118-124.
16. European Commission European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. (EUR 16262 EN) 2000, European Commission & The Office For Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, Accessed July 10, 2013. http://www.drs.dk/guidelines/ct/quality/Download.htm.
17. Singh S., Kalra M.K., Hsieh J., et al. Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 2010, 257:373-383.
18. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations. Task Group 204 2011, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park, MD.
19. Tack D., Bohy P., Perlot I., et al. Suspected acute colon diverticulitis: imaging with low-dose unenhanced multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2005, 237:189-196.
20. Lee S.H., Kim M.J., Yoon C.S., et al. Radiation dose reduction with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) technique for chest CT in children: an intra-individual comparison. Eur J Radiol 2012, 81:e938-e943. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0720048X1200280X.
21. Liu W., Esler S.J., Kenny B.J., et al. Low-dose non enhanced helical CT of renal colic: assessment of ureteric stone detection and measurement of effective dose equivalent. Radiology 2000, 215:51-54.
22. Marin D., Nelson R.C., Barnhart H., et al. Detection of pancreatic tumors, image quality, and radiation dose during the pancreatic parenchymal phase: effect of a low-tube-voltage, high-tube-current CT technique-preliminary results. Radiology 2010, 256:450-459.
23. Kulkarni N.M., Uppot R.N., Eisner B.H., et al. Radiation dose reduction at multidetector CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction for evaluation of urolithiasis: how low can we go?. Radiology 2012, 265:158-166.
24. Baker M.E., Dong F., Primak A., et al. Contrast-to-noise ratio and low-contrast object resolution on full- and low-dose MDCT: SAFIRE versus filtered back projection in a low-contrast object phantom and in the liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012, 199:8-18.
25. Negi N., Yoshikawa T., Ohno Y., et al. Hepatic CT perfusion measurements: A feasibility study for radiation dose reduction using new image reconstruction method. Eur J Radiol 2012, 81:3048-3054.
26. Noël P.B., Fingerle A.A., Renger B., et al. Initial performance characterization of a clinical noise-suppressing reconstruction algorithm for MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011, 197:1404-1409.
27. Hara A.K., Paden R.G., Silva A.C., et al. Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009, 193:764-771.
28. Kaza R.K., Platt J.F., Al-Hawary M.H., et al. CT enterography at 80 kVp withadaptive statistical iterative reconstruction versus at 120 kVp with standard reconstruction: image quality, diagnostic adequacy and dose reduction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012, 198:1084-1092.
29. Sagara Y., Hara A., Pavlicek W., et al. Abdominal CT: comparison of low dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routine dose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010, 195:713-719.
30. Kambadakone A.R., Chaudhary N.A., Desai G.S., et al. Low dose MDCT and CT enterography of patients with Crohn disease: feasibility of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011, 196:W743-W752.
31. 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.
32. Iezzi R., Cotroneo A.R., Giammarino A., et al. Low-dose multidetector-row CT-angiography of abdominal aortic aneurysm after endovascular repair. Eur J Radiol 2011, 79:21-28.
33. Sahani D.V., Kalva S.P., Hahn P.F., et al. 16-MDCT angiography in living kidney donors at various tube potentials: impact on image quality and radiation dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007, 188:115-120.
34. Namimoto T., Oda S., Utsunomiya D., et al. Improvement of image quality at low-radiation dose and low-contrast material dose abdominal CT in patients with cirrhosis: intraindividual comparison of low tube voltage with iterative reconstruction algorithm and standard tube voltage. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2012, 36:495-501.
35. 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.
36. Pinho D.F., Kulkarni N.M., Krishnaraj A., et al. Initial experience with single-source dual-energy CT abdominal angiography and comparison with single-energy CT angiography: image quality, enhancement, diagnosis and radiation dose. Eur J Radiol 2013, 23:351-359.