BACKGROUND: The use of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) algorithm has been shown to reduce radiation doses in adults undergoing abdominal CT studies while preserving image quality. To our knowledge, no studies have been done to validate the use of ASIR in children. OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively evaluate differences in radiation dose and image quality in pediatric CT abdominal studies utilizing 40% ASIR compared with filtered-back projection (FBP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven patients (mean age 8.5 years, range 2-17 years) had separate 40% ASIR and FBP enhanced abdominal CT studies on different days between July 2009 and October 2010. The ASIR studies utilized a 38% mA reduction in addition to our pediatric protocol mAs. Study volume CT dose indexes (CTDI(vol)) and dose-length products (DLP) were recorded. A consistent representative image was obtained from each study. The images were independently evaluated by two radiologists in a blinded manner for diagnostic utility, image sharpness and image noise. RESULTS: The average CTDI(vol) and DLP for the 40% ASIR studies were 4.25 mGy and 185.04 mGy-cm, compared with 6.75 mGy and 275.79 mGy-cm for the FBP studies, representing 37% and 33% reductions in both, respectively. The radiologists' assessments of subjective image quality did not demonstrate any significant differences between the ASIR and FBP images. CONCLUSION: In our experience, the use of 40% ASIR with a 38% decrease in mA lowers the radiation dose for children undergoing enhanced abdominal examinations by an average of 33%, while maintaining diagnostically acceptable images.
BACKGROUND: The use of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) algorithm has been shown to reduce radiation doses in adults undergoing abdominal CT studies while preserving image quality. To our knowledge, no studies have been done to validate the use of ASIR in children. OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively evaluate differences in radiation dose and image quality in pediatric CT abdominal studies utilizing 40% ASIR compared with filtered-back projection (FBP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven patients (mean age 8.5 years, range 2-17 years) had separate 40% ASIR and FBP enhanced abdominal CT studies on different days between July 2009 and October 2010. The ASIR studies utilized a 38% mA reduction in addition to our pediatric protocol mAs. Study volume CT dose indexes (CTDI(vol)) and dose-length products (DLP) were recorded. A consistent representative image was obtained from each study. The images were independently evaluated by two radiologists in a blinded manner for diagnostic utility, image sharpness and image noise. RESULTS: The average CTDI(vol) and DLP for the 40% ASIR studies were 4.25 mGy and 185.04 mGy-cm, compared with 6.75 mGy and 275.79 mGy-cm for the FBP studies, representing 37% and 33% reductions in both, respectively. The radiologists' assessments of subjective image quality did not demonstrate any significant differences between the ASIR and FBP images. CONCLUSION: In our experience, the use of 40% ASIR with a 38% decrease in mA lowers the radiation dose for children undergoing enhanced abdominal examinations by an average of 33%, while maintaining diagnostically acceptable images.
Authors: Priyanka Prakash; Mannudeep K Kalra; Jeanne B Ackman; Subba R Digumarthy; Jiang Hsieh; Synho Do; Jo-Anne O Shepard; Matthew D Gilman Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yoshiko Sagara; Amy K Hara; William Pavlicek; Alvin C Silva; Robert G Paden; Qing Wu Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Priyanka Prakash; Mannudeep K Kalra; Avinash K Kambadakone; Homer Pien; Jiang Hsieh; Michael A Blake; Dushyant V Sahani Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Courtney Coursey; Donald P Frush; Terry Yoshizumi; Greta Toncheva; Giao Nguyen; S Bruce Greenberg Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Kristina T Flicek; Amy K Hara; Alvin C Silva; Qing Wu; Mary B Peter; C Daniel Johnson Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Sarabjeet Singh; Mannudeep K Kalra; Jiang Hsieh; Paul E Licato; Synho Do; Homer H Pien; Michael A Blake Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-09-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: G A Vorona; G Zuccoli; T Sutcavage; B L Clayton; R C Ceschin; A Panigrahy Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Oliver Rompel; Martin Glöckler; Rolf Janka; Sven Dittrich; Robert Cesnjevar; Michael M Lell; Michael Uder; Matthias Hammon Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2016-01-06
Authors: Francesco Tricarico; Anthony M Hlavacek; U Joseph Schoepf; Ullrich Ebersberger; John W Nance; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Young Jun Cho; J Reid Spears; Francesco Secchi; Giancarlo Savino; Riccardo Marano; Stefan O Schoenberg; Lorenzo Bonomo; Paul Apfaltrer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-12-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Martin J Willemink; Tim Leiner; Pim A de Jong; Linda M de Heer; Rutger A J Nievelstein; Arnold M R Schilham; Ricardo P J Budde Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-01-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Claudia Zacharias; Adam M Alessio; Randolph K Otto; Ramesh S Iyer; Grace S Philips; Jonathan O Swanson; Mahesh M Thapa Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 3.959