MDCT of chest, abdomen, and pelvis using attenuation-based automated tube voltage selection in combination with iterative reconstruction: An intrapatient study of radiation dose and image quality

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 201, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 1075-1082

  Gonzalez Guindalini, Fernanda Dias ^a   Ferreira Botelho, Marcos Paulo ^a   Töre, Hüseyin Gürkan ^a   Ahn, Richard W ^a   Gordon, Leo I ^a   Yaghmai, Vahid ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Attenuation based automated kilovoltage selection; Filtered backprojection reconstruction; Image quality; Iterative reconstruction; Radiation dose

Indexed keywords

ABDOMEN; ADULT; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; ATTENUATION BASED AUTOMATED TUBE VOLTAGE SELECTION; AUTOMATION; CANCER PATIENT; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; FEMALE; FILTERED BACKPROJECTION IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION ALGORITHM; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; ITERATIVE RECONSTRUCTION ALGORITHM; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; NOISE REDUCTION; PELVIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE REDUCTION; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; THORAX; X RAY TUBE;

ALGORITHMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; IOHEXOL; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PELVIS; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RADIOGRAPHY, ABDOMINAL; RADIOGRAPHY, THORACIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84886514712     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.10354     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. 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
2. Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Johnson E, et al. Use of diagnostic imaging studies and associated radiation exposure for patients enrolled in large integrated health care systems, 1996-2010. JAMA 2012; 307:2400-2409
3. Mettler FA Jr, Bhargavan M, Faulkner K, et al. Radiologic and nuclear medicine studies in the United States and worldwide: frequency, radiation dose, and comparison with other radiation sources - 1950-2007. Radiology 2009; 253:520-531
4. Jaffe TA, Wickersham NW, Sullivan DC. Quantitative imaging in oncology patients. Part 1. Radiology practice patterns at major U.S. cancer centers. AJR 2010; 195:101-106
5. Salim A, Sangthong B, Martin M, Brown C, Plurad D, Demetriades D. Whole body imaging in blunt multisystem trauma patients without obvious signs of injury: results of a prospective study. Arch Surg 2006; 141:468-473; discussion, 473-465
6. Lumsdaine W, Enninghorst N, Hardy BM, Balogh ZJ. Patterns of CT use and surgical intervention in upper limb periarticular fractures at a level-1 trauma centre. Injury 2013; 44:471-474
7. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Testicular cancer. National Comprehensive Cancer Network website. NCCN.org. Published 2012
8. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Colon cancer. National Comprehensive Cancer Network website. NCCN.org. Published 2012
9. Kodama K, Ozasa K, Okubo T. Radiation and cancer risk in atomic-bomb survivors. J Radiol Prot 2012; 32:N51-N54
10. Tubiana M, Feinendegen LE, Yang C, Kaminski JM. The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data. Radiology 2009; 251:13-22
11. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Professional/education/ science policies. www.aapm.org/org/policies/details.asp?id=318&type=PP. Accessed July 11, 2013
12. Baumueller S, Winklehner A, Karlo C, et al. Lowdose CT of the lung: potential value of iterative reconstructions. Eur Radiol 2012; 22:2597-2606
13. Clarke RH, Valentin J. The history of ICRP and the evolution of its policies. In: Annals of the ICRP. Oxford, UK: Elsevier, 2009:75-110
14. Sodickson A. Strategies for reducing radiation exposure in multi-detector row CT. Radiol Clin North Am 2012; 50:1-14
15. 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
16. Xu L, Zhang Z. Coronary CT angiography with low radiation dose. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2010; 26(suppl 1):17-25
17. Coakley FV, Gould R, Yeh BM, Arenson RL. CT radiation dose: what can you do right now in your practice? AJR 2011; 196:619-625
18. 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
19. Ghafourian K, Younes D, Simprini LA, Weigold WG, Weissman G, Taylor AJ. Scout view x-ray attenuation versus weight-based selection of reduced peak tube voltage in cardiac CT angiography. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2012; 5:589-595
20. Grant K. CARE kV: automated dose-optimized selection of x-ray tube voltage. White paper. Forchheim, Germany: Siemens Healthcare, 2011
21. Kalra MK, Woisetschlager M, Dahlstrom N, et al. Radiation dose reduction with sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction technique for abdominal computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2012; 36:339-346
22. 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
23. Lee KH, Lee JM, Moon SK, et al. Attenuation-based automatic tube voltage selection and tube current modulation for dose reduction at contrast-enhanced liver CT. Radiology 2012; 265:437-447
24. Schmidt B, Flohr T. How to scan with CARE kV. White paper. Forchheim, Germany: Siemens Healthcare, 2011
25. Baker ME, Dong F, Primak A, et al. Contrast-tonoise 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 2012; 199:8-18
26. Lee CH, Goo JM, Ye HJ, et al. Radiation dose modulation techniques in the multidetector CT era: from basics to practice. Radiographics 2008; 28:1451-1459
27. Christner JA, Kofler JM, McCollough CH. Estimating effective dose for CT using dose-length product compared with using organ doses: consequences of adopting International Commission on Radiological Protection publication 103 or dualenergy scanning. AJR 2010; 194:881-889
28. Shrimpton PC. Assessment of patient dose in CT: appendix C. In: European guidelines for multislice computed tomography funded by the European Commission 2004: contract number FIGMCT2000-20078-CT-TIP. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: European Commission, 2004
29. Shrimpton PCHM, Lewis MA, Dunn M. Doses from computed tomography (CT) examinations in the UK: 2003 review. In: Report NRPB-W67. Chilton, UK: National Radiological Protection Board, 2005
30. Goshima S, Kanematsu M, Nishibori H, et al. CT of the pancreas: comparison of anatomic structure depiction, image quality, and radiation exposure between 320-detector volumetric images and 64-detector helical images. Radiology 2011; 260:139-147
31. Graser A, Wintersperger BJ, Suess C, Reiser MF, Becker CR. Dose reduction and image quality in MDCT colonography using tube current modulation. AJR 2006; 187:695-701
32. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Sahani DV, et al. Lowdose CT of the abdomen: evaluation of image improvement with use of noise reduction filters pilot study. Radiology 2003; 228:251-256
33. Eller A, May MS, Scharf M, et al. Attenuation-based automatic kilovolt selection in abdominal computed tomography: effects on radiation exposure and image quality. Invest Radiol 2012; 47:559-565
34. Menke J. Comparison of different body size parameters for individual dose adaptation in body CT of adults. Radiology 2005; 236:565-571
35. Alkadhi H, Leschka S. Radiation dose of cardiac computed tomography: what has been achieved and what needs to be done. Eur Radiol 2011; 21:505-509
36. Kim JE, Newman B. Evaluation of a radiation dose reduction strategy for pediatric chest CT. AJR 2010; 194:1188-1193
37. McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM Jr. CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. Radiographics 2006; 26:503-512
38. Silva AC, Lawder HJ, Hara A, Kujak J, Pavlicek W. Innovations in CT dose reduction strategy: application of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm. AJR 2010; 194:191-199
39. Mulkens TH, 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
40. Hough DM, Fletcher JG, Grant KL, et al. Lowering kilovoltage to reduce radiation dose in contrast-enhanced abdominal CT: initial assessment of a prototype automated kilovoltage selection tool. AJR 2012; 199:1070-1077
41. Goetti R, Winklehner A, Gordic S, et al. Automated attenuation-based kilovoltage selection: preliminary observations in patients after endovascular aneurysm repair of the abdominal aorta. AJR 2012; 199:[web]W380-W385
42. Winklehner A, Goetti R, Baumueller S, et al. Automated attenuation-based tube potential selection for thoracoabdominal computed tomography angiography: improved dose effectiveness. Invest Radiol 2011; 46:767-773