OBJECTIVE: The National Lung Screening Trial includes 33 participating institutions that performed 75,133 lung cancer screening CT examinations for 26,724 subjects during 2002-2007. For trial quality assurance reasons, CT radiation dose measurement data were collected from all MDCT scanners used in the trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 247 measurements on 96 MDCT scanners were collected using a standard CT dose index (CTDI) measurement protocol. The scan parameters used in the measurements (tube voltage, milliampere-seconds [mAs], and detector-channel configuration) were set according to trial protocol for average size subjects. The normalized weighted CT dose index (CTDI(w)) (computed as CTDI(w)/mAs) obtained from each trial-participating scanner was tabulated. RESULTS: We found a statistically significant difference in normalized CT dose index among CT scanner manufacturers, likely as a result of design differences, such as filtration, bow-tie design, and geometry. Our findings also indicated a statistically significant difference in normalized CT dose index among CT scanner models from the same manufacturer (e.g., GE Healthcare, Siemens Healthcare, and Philips Healthcare). We also found a statistically significant difference in normalized CT dose index among all models and all manufacturers; furthermore, we found a statistically significant difference in normalized CT dose index among CT scanners from all manufacturers when we compared scanners with four or eight data channels to those with 16, 32, or 64 channels, suggesting that more complex scanners have improved dose efficiency. CONCLUSION: Average normalized CT dose index values varied by a factor of almost two for all scanners from all manufacturers. This study was focused on machine-specific normalized CT dose index; patient dose and image quality were not addressed.
OBJECTIVE: The National Lung Screening Trial includes 33 participating institutions that performed 75,133 lung cancer screening CT examinations for 26,724 subjects during 2002-2007. For trial quality assurance reasons, CT radiation dose measurement data were collected from all MDCT scanners used in the trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 247 measurements on 96 MDCT scanners were collected using a standard CT dose index (CTDI) measurement protocol. The scan parameters used in the measurements (tube voltage, milliampere-seconds [mAs], and detector-channel configuration) were set according to trial protocol for average size subjects. The normalized weighted CT dose index (CTDI(w)) (computed as CTDI(w)/mAs) obtained from each trial-participating scanner was tabulated. RESULTS: We found a statistically significant difference in normalized CT dose index among CT scanner manufacturers, likely as a result of design differences, such as filtration, bow-tie design, and geometry. Our findings also indicated a statistically significant difference in normalized CT dose index among CT scanner models from the same manufacturer (e.g., GE Healthcare, Siemens Healthcare, and Philips Healthcare). We also found a statistically significant difference in normalized CT dose index among all models and all manufacturers; furthermore, we found a statistically significant difference in normalized CT dose index among CT scanners from all manufacturers when we compared scanners with four or eight data channels to those with 16, 32, or 64 channels, suggesting that more complex scanners have improved dose efficiency. CONCLUSION: Average normalized CT dose index values varied by a factor of almost two for all scanners from all manufacturers. This study was focused on machine-specific normalized CT dose index; patient dose and image quality were not addressed.
Authors: Christopher H Cagnon; Dianna D Cody; Michael F McNitt-Gray; J Anthony Seibert; Philip F Judy; Denise R Aberle Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Samuel G Armato; Geoffrey McLennan; Luc Bidaut; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Charles R Meyer; Anthony P Reeves; Binsheng Zhao; Denise R Aberle; Claudia I Henschke; Eric A Hoffman; Ella A Kazerooni; Heber MacMahon; Edwin J R Van Beeke; David Yankelevitz; Alberto M Biancardi; Peyton H Bland; Matthew S Brown; Roger M Engelmann; Gary E Laderach; Daniel Max; Richard C Pais; David P Y Qing; Rachael Y Roberts; Amanda R Smith; Adam Starkey; Poonam Batrah; Philip Caligiuri; Ali Farooqi; Gregory W Gladish; C Matilda Jude; Reginald F Munden; Iva Petkovska; Leslie E Quint; Lawrence H Schwartz; Baskaran Sundaram; Lori E Dodd; Charles Fenimore; David Gur; Nicholas Petrick; John Freymann; Justin Kirby; Brian Hughes; Alessi Vande Casteele; Sangeeta Gupte; Maha Sallamm; Michael D Heath; Michael H Kuhn; Ekta Dharaiya; Richard Burns; David S Fryd; Marcos Salganicoff; Vikram Anand; Uri Shreter; Stephen Vastagh; Barbara Y Croft Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Asha Bonney; Reem Malouf; Corynne Marchal; David Manners; Kwun M Fong; Henry M Marshall; Louis B Irving; Renée Manser Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-08-03
Authors: Randell Kruger; Michael J Flynn; Phillip F Judy; Christopher H Cagnon; J Anthony Seibert Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 3.959