OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze radiation dose reduction and image quality by combining automated kV selection, tube current reduction, and iterative reconstruction. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of the excretory phase of 55 patients with 2 computed tomography urography examinations: automated kV selection with tube current reduction ("low-dose protocol": with filtered back projection vs iterative reconstruction) and routine dose examinations. Image quality was analyzed blindly and in side-by-side analyses, in addition to quantitative measurements. RESULTS: Low-dose protocol median dose change was -40% (-10.7 to +12.9 mGy); 100 kV was autoselected in 44 (80%) of 55 patients (body mass index range, 19-36 kg/m) with mean dose reduction of 42.5%. Whereas up to 19% of low-dose images with filtered back projection were inferior by blinded review (P < 0.001), low-dose iterative reconstruction images were not rated inferior (P = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of iterative reconstruction, automated kV selection, and tube current reduction results in radiation dose reduction with preserved image quality and diagnostic confidence.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze radiation dose reduction and image quality by combining automated kV selection, tube current reduction, and iterative reconstruction. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of the excretory phase of 55 patients with 2 computed tomography urography examinations: automated kV selection with tube current reduction ("low-dose protocol": with filtered back projection vs iterative reconstruction) and routine dose examinations. Image quality was analyzed blindly and in side-by-side analyses, in addition to quantitative measurements. RESULTS: Low-dose protocol median dose change was -40% (-10.7 to +12.9 mGy); 100 kV was autoselected in 44 (80%) of 55 patients (body mass index range, 19-36 kg/m) with mean dose reduction of 42.5%. Whereas up to 19% of low-dose images with filtered back projection were inferior by blinded review (P < 0.001), low-dose iterative reconstruction images were not rated inferior (P = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of iterative reconstruction, automated kV selection, and tube current reduction results in radiation dose reduction with preserved image quality and diagnostic confidence.
Authors: J G Fletcher; D R DeLone; A L Kotsenas; N G Campeau; V T Lehman; L Yu; S Leng; D R Holmes; P K Edwards; M P Johnson; G J Michalak; R E Carter; C H McCollough Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 3.825
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: S Gabriel; L J Eckel; D R DeLone; K N Krecke; P H Luetmer; C H McCollough; J G Fletcher; L Yu Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-07-31 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: G Jay Hanson; Gregory J Michalak; Robert Childs; Brian McCollough; Anil N Kurup; David M Hough; Judson M Frye; Jeff L Fidler; Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Shuai Leng; Lifeng Yu; Ahmed F Halaweish; W Scott Harmsen; Cynthia H McCollough; J G Fletcher Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-06
Authors: Joel G Fletcher; Jeff L Fidler; Sudhakar K Venkatesh; David M Hough; Naoki Takahashi; Lifeng Yu; Matthew Johnson; Shuai Leng; David R Holmes; Rickey Carter; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-09-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Joel G Fletcher; David L Levin; Anne-Marie G Sykes; Rebecca M Lindell; Darin B White; Ronald S Kuzo; Vighnesh Suresh; Lifeng Yu; Shuai Leng; David R Holmes; Akitoshi Inoue; Matthew P Johnson; Rickey E Carter; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 11.105