OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimum low dose (LD) digital tomosynthesis (DT) setting, and to compared the image quality of the LD DT with that of the standard default (SD) DT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine DT settings, by changing tube voltage, copper filter, and dose ratio, were performed for determining the LD setting. Among combinations of DT setting, a condition providing the lowest radiation dose was determined. Eighty artificial nodules less than 1 cm in diameter (subcentimeter nodules: 40, micronodules less than 4 mm: 40) were attached to a Styrofoam and a diaphragm of the phantom. Among these, 38 nodules were located at the periphery of the lung (thin area) and 42 nodules were located at the paravertebral or sub-diaphragmatic area (thick area). Four observers counted the number of nodules detected in the thick and thin areas. The detection sensitivity in SD and LD settings were calculated separately. Data were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: The lowest LD setting was a combination of 100 kVp, 0.3 mm additional copper filter, and a 1 : 5 dose ratio. The effective dose for the LD and SD settings were 62 µSv and 140 µSv, separately. A 56.7% dose reduction was achieved in the LD setting compared with the SD setting. Detection sensitivities were not different between the SD and the LD settings except between observers 1 and 2 for the detection of micronodules in the thick area. CONCLUSION: LD DT can be effective in nodule detection bigger than 4 mm without a significant decrease in image quality compared with SD DT.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimum low dose (LD) digital tomosynthesis (DT) setting, and to compared the image quality of the LD DT with that of the standard default (SD) DT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine DT settings, by changing tube voltage, copper filter, and dose ratio, were performed for determining the LD setting. Among combinations of DT setting, a condition providing the lowest radiation dose was determined. Eighty artificial nodules less than 1 cm in diameter (subcentimeter nodules: 40, micronodules less than 4 mm: 40) were attached to a Styrofoam and a diaphragm of the phantom. Among these, 38 nodules were located at the periphery of the lung (thin area) and 42 nodules were located at the paravertebral or sub-diaphragmatic area (thick area). Four observers counted the number of nodules detected in the thick and thin areas. The detection sensitivity in SD and LD settings were calculated separately. Data were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: The lowest LD setting was a combination of 100 kVp, 0.3 mm additional copper filter, and a 1 : 5 dose ratio. The effective dose for the LD and SD settings were 62 µSv and 140 µSv, separately. A 56.7% dose reduction was achieved in the LD setting compared with the SD setting. Detection sensitivities were not different between the SD and the LD settings except between observers 1 and 2 for the detection of micronodules in the thick area. CONCLUSION:LD DT can be effective in nodule detection bigger than 4 mm without a significant decrease in image quality compared with SD DT.
Entities:
Keywords:
Digital radiography; Radiation dose; Tomographic imaging
Authors: James T Dobbins; Ehsan Samei; Harrell G Chotas; Richard J Warp; Alan H Baydush; Carey E Floyd; Carl E Ravin Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Heber MacMahon; John H M Austin; Gordon Gamsu; Christian J Herold; James R Jett; David P Naidich; Edward F Patz; Stephen J Swensen Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: T Dobbins James; H Page McAdams; Jae-Woo Song; Christina M Li; Devon J Godfrey; David M DeLong; Sang-Hyun Paik; Santiago Martinez-Jimenez Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Okka W Hamer; Claude B Sirlin; Michael Strotzer; Ingitha Borisch; Niels Zorger; Stefan Feuerbach; Markus Völk Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-09-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Cynthia H McCollough; Andrew N Primak; Natalie Braun; James Kofler; Lifeng Yu; Jodie Christner Journal: Radiol Clin North Am Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Sara A Asplund; Åse A Johnsson; Jenny Vikgren; Angelica Svalkvist; Agneta Flinck; Marianne Boijsen; Valeria A Fisichella; Lars Gunnar Månsson; Magnus Båth Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: James T Dobbins; H Page McAdams; John M Sabol; Dev P Chakraborty; Ella A Kazerooni; Gautham P Reddy; Jenny Vikgren; Magnus Båth Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Elias Taylor Gunnell; Dora K Franceschi; Christina R Inscoe; Allison Hartman; Jennifer L Goralski; Agathe Ceppe; Brian Handly; Cassandra Sams; Lynn Ansley Fordham; Jianping Lu; Otto Zhou; Yueh Z Lee Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Allen Cole Burks; Jason Akulian; Christina R MacRosty; Sohini Ghosh; Adam Belanger; Muthu Sakthivel; Thad S Benefield; Christina R Inscoe; Otto Zhou; Jianping Lu; Yueh Z Lee Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2022-02 Impact factor: 2.895