Ji Young Lee1, Myung Jin Chung, Chin A Yi, Kyung Soo Lee. 1. Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between CT dose and the performance of a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system, and to determine how best to minimize patient exposure to ionizing radiation while maintaining sufficient image quality for automated lung nodule detection, by the use of lung cancer screening CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five asymptomatic volunteers participated in the study. Each volunteer underwent a low-dose CT scan without contrast enhancement (multidetector CT with 16 detector rows, 1.25 mm section thickness, 120 kVp, beam pitch 1.35, 0.6 second rotation time, with 1.25 mm thickness reconstruction at 1.25 mm intervals) using four different amperages 32, 16, 8, and 4 mAs. All series were analyzed using a commercially available CAD system for automatic lung nodule detection and the results were reviewed by a consensus reading by two radiologists. The McNemar test and Kappa analysis were used to compare differences in terms of the abilities to detect pulmonary nodules. RESULTS: A total of 78 non-calcified true nodules were visualized in the 25 study subjects. The sensitivities for nodule detection were as follows: 72% at 32 mAs, 64% at 16 mAs, 59% at 8 mAs, and 40% at 4 mAs. Although the overall nodule-detecting performance was best at 32 mAs, no significant difference in nodule detectability was observed between scans at 16 mAs or 8 mAs versus 32 mAs. However, scans performed at 4 mAs were significantly inferior to those performed at 32 mAs (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Reducing the radiation dose (i.e. reducing the amperage) lowers lung nodule detectability by CAD. However, relatively low dose scans were found to be acceptable and to cause no significant reduction in nodule detectability versus usual low-dose CT.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between CT dose and the performance of a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system, and to determine how best to minimize patient exposure to ionizing radiation while maintaining sufficient image quality for automated lung nodule detection, by the use of lung cancer screening CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five asymptomatic volunteers participated in the study. Each volunteer underwent a low-dose CT scan without contrast enhancement (multidetector CT with 16 detector rows, 1.25 mm section thickness, 120 kVp, beam pitch 1.35, 0.6 second rotation time, with 1.25 mm thickness reconstruction at 1.25 mm intervals) using four different amperages 32, 16, 8, and 4 mAs. All series were analyzed using a commercially available CAD system for automatic lung nodule detection and the results were reviewed by a consensus reading by two radiologists. The McNemar test and Kappa analysis were used to compare differences in terms of the abilities to detect pulmonary nodules. RESULTS: A total of 78 non-calcified true nodules were visualized in the 25 study subjects. The sensitivities for nodule detection were as follows: 72% at 32 mAs, 64% at 16 mAs, 59% at 8 mAs, and 40% at 4 mAs. Although the overall nodule-detecting performance was best at 32 mAs, no significant difference in nodule detectability was observed between scans at 16 mAs or 8 mAs versus 32 mAs. However, scans performed at 4 mAs were significantly inferior to those performed at 32 mAs (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Reducing the radiation dose (i.e. reducing the amperage) lowers lung nodule detectability by CAD. However, relatively low dose scans were found to be acceptable and to cause no significant reduction in nodule detectability versus usual low-dose CT.
Authors: John R Mayo; Kun-Il Kim; Sharyn L S MacDonald; Takeshi Johkoh; Peter Kavanagh; Harvey O Coxson; Sverre Vedal Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-07-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Stephen J Swensen; James R Jett; Thomas E Hartman; David E Midthun; Jeff A Sloan; Anne-Marie Sykes; Gregory L Aughenbaugh; Medy A Clemens Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-01-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jin Mo Goo; Jeong Won Lee; Hyun Ju Lee; Seunghwan Kim; Jong Hyo Kim; Jung-Gi Im Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2003 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Franziska M Braun; Thorsten R C Johnson; Wieland H Sommer; Kolja M Thierfelder; Felix G Meinel Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Justus E Roos; David Paik; David Olsen; Emily G Liu; Lawrence C Chow; Ann N Leung; Robert Mindelzun; Kingshuk R Choudhury; David P Naidich; Sandy Napel; Geoffrey D Rubin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Charlene Jin Yee Liew; Lester Chee Hao Leong; Lynette Li San Teo; Ching Ching Ong; Foong Koon Cheah; Wei Ping Tham; Haja Mohamed Mohideen Salahudeen; Chau Hung Lee; Gregory Jon Leng Kaw; Augustine Kim Huat Tee; Ian Yu Yan Tsou; Kiang Hiong Tay; Raymond Quah; Bien Peng Tan; Hong Chou; Daniel Tan; Angeline Choo Choo Poh; Andrew Gee Seng Tan Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 1.858
Authors: Douglas E Wood; Ella A Kazerooni; Scott L Baum; George A Eapen; David S Ettinger; Lifang Hou; David M Jackman; Donald Klippenstein; Rohit Kumar; Rudy P Lackner; Lorriana E Leard; Inga T Lennes; Ann N C Leung; Samir S Makani; Pierre P Massion; Peter Mazzone; Robert E Merritt; Bryan F Meyers; David E Midthun; Sudhakar Pipavath; Christie Pratt; Chakravarthy Reddy; Mary E Reid; Arnold J Rotter; Peter B Sachs; Matthew B Schabath; Mark L Schiebler; Betty C Tong; William D Travis; Benjamin Wei; Stephen C Yang; Kristina M Gregory; Miranda Hughes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Kyoung Doo Song; Myung Jin Chung; Hee Cheol Kim; Sun Young Jeong; Kyung Soo Lee Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2011-03-03 Impact factor: 3.500