OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the use of an automated CT kilovoltage (kV) selection tool (Auto kV) can result in lower radiation dose without sacrificing image quality in contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tube potential, radiation dose, and iodine contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were retrospectively evaluated in 36 patients who underwent abdominopelvic CT with Auto kV, and compared with results from size-matched control patients using identical protocols. Two radiologists evaluated image quality (sharpness, noise, and diagnostic confidence) blinded to kV. Volume CT dose index (CTDI(vol)) was also compared with what each patient would have received from scanning at 120 kV. RESULTS: Mean (SD) CTDI(vol) was 16.0 (4.4) mGy after Auto kV versus 19.5 (4.0) mGy using standard 120-kV prescription and was 19.3 (6.0) mGy in control subjects (yielding dose reductions of 18.0% and 17.2%, respectively; p < 0.001 for both). Thirty of 36 patients were scanned at 100 kV (median dose reduction, 25%). Auto kV images were rated as very sharp in 33 (92%) and 36 (100%) cases versus 36 (100%) and 35 (97%) of the control cases, with all cases scored as having optimal noise. Readers had full diagnostic confidence in 34 (94%) and 36 (100%) of Auto kV cases; one reader scored "probably confident" in two cases (6%). Iodine CNRs for the aorta, liver, and portal vein were similar between Auto kV cases and control cases (p > 0.50, all comparisons). CONCLUSION: The use of an automated kV selection tool results in significant dose savings while maintaining diagnostic image quality and iodine CNR.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the use of an automated CT kilovoltage (kV) selection tool (Auto kV) can result in lower radiation dose without sacrificing image quality in contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tube potential, radiation dose, and iodine contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were retrospectively evaluated in 36 patients who underwent abdominopelvic CT with Auto kV, and compared with results from size-matched control patients using identical protocols. Two radiologists evaluated image quality (sharpness, noise, and diagnostic confidence) blinded to kV. Volume CT dose index (CTDI(vol)) was also compared with what each patient would have received from scanning at 120 kV. RESULTS: Mean (SD) CTDI(vol) was 16.0 (4.4) mGy after Auto kV versus 19.5 (4.0) mGy using standard 120-kV prescription and was 19.3 (6.0) mGy in control subjects (yielding dose reductions of 18.0% and 17.2%, respectively; p < 0.001 for both). Thirty of 36 patients were scanned at 100 kV (median dose reduction, 25%). Auto kV images were rated as very sharp in 33 (92%) and 36 (100%) cases versus 36 (100%) and 35 (97%) of the control cases, with all cases scored as having optimal noise. Readers had full diagnostic confidence in 34 (94%) and 36 (100%) of Auto kV cases; one reader scored "probably confident" in two cases (6%). Iodine CNRs for the aorta, liver, and portal vein were similar between Auto kV cases and control cases (p > 0.50, all comparisons). CONCLUSION: The use of an automated kV selection tool results in significant dose savings while maintaining diagnostic image quality and iodine CNR.
Authors: Michael F Brinkley; Juan C Ramirez-Giraldo; Ehsan Samei; Daniel J Frush; Kingshuk Roy Choudhury; Joshua M Wilson; Olav I Christianson; Donald P Frush Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: D Jackson; K Atkin; F Bettenay; J Clark; M R Ditchfield; J E Grimm; R Linke; G Long; E Onikul; J Pereira; M Phillips; F Wilson; E Paul; S K Goergen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ravi K Kaza; Joel F Platt; Mitchell M Goodsitt; Mahmoud M Al-Hawary; Katherine E Maturen; Ashish P Wasnik; Amit Pandya Journal: Radiographics Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Joel G Fletcher; Lifeng Yu; Zhoubo Li; Armando Manduca; Daniel J Blezek; David M Hough; Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Gregory C Brickner; Joseph C Cernigliaro; Amy K Hara; Jeff L Fidler; David S Lake; Maria Shiung; David Lewis; Shuai Leng; Kurt E Augustine; Rickey E Carter; David R Holmes; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Wei Zhou; Dilbar Abdurakhimova; Michael Bruesewitz; Ahmed Halaweish; Cynthia H McCollough; Shuai Leng Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2018-03
Authors: Claudia Frellesen; Wenzel Stock; J Matthias Kerl; Thomas Lehnert; Julian L Wichmann; Christoph Nau; Emanuel Geiger; Sebastian Wutzler; Martin Beeres; Boris Schulz; Boris Bodelle; Hanns Ackermann; Thomas J Vogl; Ralf W Bauer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Aleksander W Krazinski; Felix G Meinel; U Joseph Schoepf; Justin R Silverman; Christian Canstein; Carlo N De Cecco; Lucas L Geyer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-07-24 Impact factor: 5.315