M Karpitschka1, D Augart, H-C Becker, M Reiser, A Graser. 1. Department of Clinical Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany. Martina.Karpitschka@med.uni-muenchen.de
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare radiation exposure and image quality of oncological staging multidetector CT (MDCT) examinations of the chest, abdomen and pelvis with and without iterative reconstruction (IR). METHODS: 40 patients with known malignancy underwent staging CT examinations at two time points. Both CT scans were performed on the same scanner (SOMATOM® Definition Flash, Siemens Healthcare, Forchheim, Germany). For the baseline scan, the tube current-time product was set to 250 mAs [image reconstruction: filtered back projection (FBP)] and for the follow-up scan to 150 mAs [reconstruction: iterative reconstruction (IR)]. Effective radiation doses were estimated based on dose-length products for both baseline and follow-up. Noise measurements in defined regions were compared for FBP and IR. Images were also subjectively evaluated for image quality by three radiologists with different levels of experience. RESULTS: Dose reduction was 44.4±8.2% for reduced-dose CT scans with IR compared with baseline with FBP. Image noise was not significantly different between images reconstructed with FBP and IR. The subjective quality of standard-dose FBP images and reduced-dose iteratively reconstructed CT images were identical. CONCLUSION: Our results show the dose-reducing potential of IR of CT image data in oncological patients. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The algorithm tested in the present scientific study allows a >45% dose reduction at maintained image quality.
OBJECTIVE: To compare radiation exposure and image quality of oncological staging multidetector CT (MDCT) examinations of the chest, abdomen and pelvis with and without iterative reconstruction (IR). METHODS: 40 patients with known malignancy underwent staging CT examinations at two time points. Both CT scans were performed on the same scanner (SOMATOM® Definition Flash, Siemens Healthcare, Forchheim, Germany). For the baseline scan, the tube current-time product was set to 250 mAs [image reconstruction: filtered back projection (FBP)] and for the follow-up scan to 150 mAs [reconstruction: iterative reconstruction (IR)]. Effective radiation doses were estimated based on dose-length products for both baseline and follow-up. Noise measurements in defined regions were compared for FBP and IR. Images were also subjectively evaluated for image quality by three radiologists with different levels of experience. RESULTS: Dose reduction was 44.4±8.2% for reduced-dose CT scans with IR compared with baseline with FBP. Image noise was not significantly different between images reconstructed with FBP and IR. The subjective quality of standard-dose FBP images and reduced-dose iteratively reconstructed CT images were identical. CONCLUSION: Our results show the dose-reducing potential of IR of CT image data in oncological patients. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The algorithm tested in the present scientific study allows a >45% dose reduction at maintained image quality.
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: Thomas G Flohr; Ernst Klotz; Thomas Allmendinger; Rainer Raupach; Herbert Bruder; Bernhard Schmidt Journal: J Thorac Imaging Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 3.000
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Ram C Tiwari; Taylor Murray; Asma Ghafoor; Alicia Samuels; Elizabeth Ward; Eric J Feuer; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2004 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Thomas L Toth; Leena M Hamberg; Michael A Blake; Jo-Anne Shepard; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-01-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Franziska M Braun; Veronica Holzner; Felix G Meinel; Marco Armbruster; Martina Brandlhuber; Birgit Ertl-Wagner; Wieland H Sommer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christian E Althoff; Matthias Bollow; Eugen Feist; Stephan R Marticorena-Garcia; Iris Eshed; Torsten Diekhoff; Bernd Hamm; Kay Geert A Hermann Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Andreas S Brendlin; Moritz T Winkelmann; Phuong Linh Do; Vincent Schwarze; Felix Peisen; Haidara Almansour; Malte N Bongers; Christoph P Artzner; Jakob Weiss; Jong Hyo Kim; Ahmed E Othman; Saif Afat Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-01-13
Authors: Andreas S Brendlin; David Plajer; Maryanna Chaika; Robin Wrazidlo; Arne Estler; Ilias Tsiflikas; Christoph P Artzner; Saif Afat; Malte N Bongers Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-01-17