OBJECTIVE: To determine the potential for radiation dose reduction using sigmoidally-blended mixed-kV images from dual energy (DE) hepatic CT. METHODS: Multiple contrast-enhanced, DE (80 kV/140 kV) datasets were reconstructed from 34 patients undergoing clinically-indicated examinations using routine CTDI(vol). Noise was inserted in projection-space to simulate six dose levels reflecting 25-100% of the original dose. Three radiologists, blinded to dose, evaluated image preference, image quality, and diagnostic confidence (scale 1 to 5) using sigmoidally-blended, mixed-kV images, identifying the lowest acceptable dose (both image quality and confidence scores ≥4). At this lowest acceptable dose, the sigmoidal, 0.5 and 0.3 linear blended images were ranked in order of preference. RESULTS: Radiation dose level correlated with image preference (correlation coefficients = 0.94, 0.81, 0.94). However, 82% (28/34) and 97% (33/34) of examinations corresponding to dose reductions of 45% and 30%, respectively, yielded acceptable image quality and confidence for all three radiologists. These frequencies were similar whether or not a lesion was present. Each radiologist had specific preferences between mixed-kV image display techniques (p ≤ 0.006), with two most often preferring sigmoidally-blended images. CONCLUSIONS: There is potential for further dose reduction utilizing DE hepatic CT. Radiologist visual preference for mixed-kV images is idiosyncratic.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the potential for radiation dose reduction using sigmoidally-blended mixed-kV images from dual energy (DE) hepatic CT. METHODS: Multiple contrast-enhanced, DE (80 kV/140 kV) datasets were reconstructed from 34 patients undergoing clinically-indicated examinations using routine CTDI(vol). Noise was inserted in projection-space to simulate six dose levels reflecting 25-100% of the original dose. Three radiologists, blinded to dose, evaluated image preference, image quality, and diagnostic confidence (scale 1 to 5) using sigmoidally-blended, mixed-kV images, identifying the lowest acceptable dose (both image quality and confidence scores ≥4). At this lowest acceptable dose, the sigmoidal, 0.5 and 0.3 linear blended images were ranked in order of preference. RESULTS: Radiation dose level correlated with image preference (correlation coefficients = 0.94, 0.81, 0.94). However, 82% (28/34) and 97% (33/34) of examinations corresponding to dose reductions of 45% and 30%, respectively, yielded acceptable image quality and confidence for all three radiologists. These frequencies were similar whether or not a lesion was present. Each radiologist had specific preferences between mixed-kV image display techniques (p ≤ 0.006), with two most often preferring sigmoidally-blended images. CONCLUSIONS: There is potential for further dose reduction utilizing DE hepatic CT. Radiologist visual preference for mixed-kV images is idiosyncratic.
Authors: Lisa M Ho; Terry T Yoshizumi; Lynne M Hurwitz; Rendon C Nelson; Daniele Marin; Greta Toncheva; Sebastian T Schindera Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2009-07-10 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Luís S Guimarães; Joel G Fletcher; Lifeng Yu; James E Huprich; Jeff L Fidler; Armando Manduca; Juan Carlos Ramirez-Giraldo; David R Holmes; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: David R Holmes; Joel G Fletcher; Anja Apel; James E Huprich; Hassan Siddiki; David M Hough; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas G Flohr; Richard Robb; Cynthia McCollough; Michael Wittmer; Christian Eusemann Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2008-11-05 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Paul Stolzmann; Thomas Frauenfelder; Thomas Pfammatter; Nicole Peter; Hans Scheffel; Mario Lachat; Bernhard Schmidt; Borut Marincek; Hatem Alkadhi; Thomas Schertler Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-09-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Daniele Marin; Rendon C Nelson; Ehsan Samei; Erik K Paulson; Lisa M Ho; Daniel T Boll; David M DeLong; Terry T Yoshizumi; Sebastian T Schindera Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-04-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Derek G Lohan; Kambiz Motamedi; Kira Chow; Reza Habibi; Christoph Panknin; Stefan G Ruehm; Leanne L Seeger Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Giuseppe Cicero; Giorgio Ascenti; Moritz H Albrecht; Alfredo Blandino; Marco Cavallaro; Tommaso D'Angelo; Maria Ludovica Carerj; Thomas J Vogl; Silvio Mazziotti Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Julian L Wichmann; Xiaohan Hu; J Matthias Kerl; Boris Schulz; Boris Bodelle; Claudia Frellesen; Thomas Lehnert; Thomas J Vogl; Ralf W Bauer Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Lifeng Yu; Joel G Fletcher; Maria Shiung; Kristen B Thomas; Jane M Matsumoto; Shannon N Zingula; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 3.959