OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess the ability of a novel automatic tube potential selection tool to reduce radiation dose while maintaining diagnostic quality in CT angiography (CTA) and contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred one CTA examinations and 90 contrastenhanced abdominopelvic examinations were performed using an automatic tube potential selection tool on a 128-MDCT scanner. Two vascular radiologists and two abdominal radiologists evaluated the image quality for sharpness, noise, artifact, and diagnostic confidence. In a subset of patients who had undergone prior studies (CTA, 28 patients; abdominopelvic CT, 25 patients), a side-by-side comparison was performed by a separate radiologist. Dose reduction and iodine contrast-to-noise ratio resulting from use of the tool were calculated. RESULTS: For CTA, 80 or 100 kV was selected for 73% of the scans, with a mean dose reduction of 36% relative to the reference 120-kV protocol. For abdominopelvic CT examinations, 80 or 100 kV was used for 55% of the scans, with a mean dose reduction of 25%. Overall dose reduction relative to the reference 120-kV protocol was 25% and 13% for CTA and abdominopelvic CT scans, respectively. Over 98% of scans had acceptable sharpness, noise texture, artifact, and diagnostic confidence for both readers and diagnostic tasks; 94-100% of scans had acceptable noise. Iodine contrast-to-noise ratio was significantly higher than (p < 0.001) or similar to (p = 0.11) that of prior scans, and equivalent quality was achieved despite the dose reduction. CONCLUSION: Automatic tube potential selection provides an efficient and quantitativeway to guide the selection of the optimal tube potential for CTA and abdominopelvic CT examinations.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess the ability of a novel automatic tube potential selection tool to reduce radiation dose while maintaining diagnostic quality in CT angiography (CTA) and contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred one CTA examinations and 90 contrastenhanced abdominopelvic examinations were performed using an automatic tube potential selection tool on a 128-MDCT scanner. Two vascular radiologists and two abdominal radiologists evaluated the image quality for sharpness, noise, artifact, and diagnostic confidence. In a subset of patients who had undergone prior studies (CTA, 28 patients; abdominopelvic CT, 25 patients), a side-by-side comparison was performed by a separate radiologist. Dose reduction and iodine contrast-to-noise ratio resulting from use of the tool were calculated. RESULTS: For CTA, 80 or 100 kV was selected for 73% of the scans, with a mean dose reduction of 36% relative to the reference 120-kV protocol. For abdominopelvic CT examinations, 80 or 100 kV was used for 55% of the scans, with a mean dose reduction of 25%. Overall dose reduction relative to the reference 120-kV protocol was 25% and 13% for CTA and abdominopelvic CT scans, respectively. Over 98% of scans had acceptable sharpness, noise texture, artifact, and diagnostic confidence for both readers and diagnostic tasks; 94-100% of scans had acceptable noise. Iodine contrast-to-noise ratio was significantly higher than (p < 0.001) or similar to (p = 0.11) that of prior scans, and equivalent quality was achieved despite the dose reduction. CONCLUSION: Automatic tube potential selection provides an efficient and quantitativeway to guide the selection of the optimal tube potential for CTA and abdominopelvic CT examinations.
Authors: Joel G Fletcher; Amy K Hara; Jeff L Fidler; Alvin C Silva; John M Barlow; Rickey E Carter; Adam Bartley; Maria Shiung; David R Holmes; Nicolas K Weber; David H Bruining; Lifeng Yu; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2015-06
Authors: Matthew R D'Costa; William E Haley; Kristin C Mara; Felicity T Enders; Terri J Vrtiska; Vernon M Pais; Steven J Jacobsen; Cynthia H McCollough; John C Lieske; Andrew D Rule Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Ji Eun Park; Young Hun Choi; Jung-Eun Cheon; Woo Sun Kim; In-One Kim; Hyun Suk Cho; Young Jin Ryu; Yu Jin Kim Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2017-03-14
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: Sharonne N Hayes; Esther S H Kim; Jacqueline Saw; David Adlam; Cynthia Arslanian-Engoren; Katherine E Economy; Santhi K Ganesh; Rajiv Gulati; Mark E Lindsay; Jennifer H Mieres; Sahar Naderi; Svati Shah; David E Thaler; Marysia S Tweet; Malissa J Wood Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 29.690