INTRODUCTION: Low tube voltage allows for computed tomography (CT) imaging with increased iodine contrast at reduced radiation dose. We sought to evaluate the image quality and potential dose reduction using a combination of attenuation based tube current modulation (TCM) and automated tube voltage adaptation (TVA) between 100 and 120 kV in CT of the head and neck. METHODS: One hundred thirty consecutive patients with indication for head and neck CT were examined with a 128-slice system capable of TCM and TVA. Reference protocol was set at 120 kV. Tube voltage was reduced to 100 kV whenever proposed by automated analysis of the localizer. An additional small scan aligned to the jaw was performed at a fixed 120 kV setting. Image quality was assessed by two radiologists on a standardized Likert-scale and measurements of signal- (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Radiation dose was assessed as CTDIvol. RESULTS: Diagnostic image quality was excellent in both groups and did not differ significantly (p = 0.34). Image noise in the 100 kV data was increased and SNR decreased (17.8/9.6) in the jugular veins and the sternocleidomastoid muscle when compared to 120 kV (SNR 24.4/10.3), but not in fatty tissue and air. However, CNR did not differ statistically significant between 100 (23.5/14.4/9.4) and 120 kV data (24.2/15.3/8.6) while radiation dose was decreased by 7-8%. CONCLUSIONS: TVA between 100 and 120 kV in combination with TCM led to a radiation dose reduction compared to TCM alone, while keeping CNR constant though maintaining diagnostic image quality.
INTRODUCTION: Low tube voltage allows for computed tomography (CT) imaging with increased iodine contrast at reduced radiation dose. We sought to evaluate the image quality and potential dose reduction using a combination of attenuation based tube current modulation (TCM) and automated tube voltage adaptation (TVA) between 100 and 120 kV in CT of the head and neck. METHODS: One hundred thirty consecutive patients with indication for head and neck CT were examined with a 128-slice system capable of TCM and TVA. Reference protocol was set at 120 kV. Tube voltage was reduced to 100 kV whenever proposed by automated analysis of the localizer. An additional small scan aligned to the jaw was performed at a fixed 120 kV setting. Image quality was assessed by two radiologists on a standardized Likert-scale and measurements of signal- (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Radiation dose was assessed as CTDIvol. RESULTS: Diagnostic image quality was excellent in both groups and did not differ significantly (p = 0.34). Image noise in the 100 kV data was increased and SNR decreased (17.8/9.6) in the jugular veins and the sternocleidomastoid muscle when compared to 120 kV (SNR 24.4/10.3), but not in fatty tissue and air. However, CNR did not differ statistically significant between 100 (23.5/14.4/9.4) and 120 kV data (24.2/15.3/8.6) while radiation dose was decreased by 7-8%. CONCLUSIONS: TVA between 100 and 120 kV in combination with TCM led to a radiation dose reduction compared to TCM alone, while keeping CNR constant though maintaining diagnostic image quality.
Authors: Achim Eller; Wolfgang Wuest; Michael Scharf; Michael Brand; Stephan Achenbach; Michael Uder; Michael M Lell Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: A Korn; M Fenchel; B Bender; S Danz; C Thomas; D Ketelsen; C D Claussen; G Moonis; B Krauss; M Heuschmid; U Ernemann; H Brodoefel Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2012-12-08 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: David J Brenner; Richard Doll; Dudley T Goodhead; Eric J Hall; Charles E Land; John B Little; Jay H Lubin; Dale L Preston; R Julian Preston; Jerome S Puskin; Elaine Ron; Rainer K Sachs; Jonathan M Samet; Richard B Setlow; Marco Zaider Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-11-10 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Sebastian T Schindera; Patricia Graca; Michael A Patak; Susanne Abderhalden; Gabriel von Allmen; Peter Vock; Zsolt Szucs-Farkas Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Adam N Wallace; Ross Vyhmeister; Swapnil Bagade; Arindam Chatterjee; Brandon Hicks; Juan Carlos Ramirez-Giraldo; Robert C McKinstry Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Victor Neuhaus; Nils Große Hokamp; Nuran Abdullayev; Volker Maus; Christoph Kabbasch; Anastasios Mpotsaris; David Maintz; Jan Borggrefe Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Doris Leithner; Julian L Wichmann; Scherwin Mahmoudi; Simon S Martin; Moritz H Albrecht; Thomas J Vogl; Jan-Erik Scholtz Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: J-E Scholtz; M Kaup; K Hüsers; M H Albrecht; B Bodelle; S C Metzger; J M Kerl; R W Bauer; T Lehnert; T J Vogl; J L Wichmann Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jan-Erik Scholtz; Moritz Kaup; Johannes Kraft; Eva-Maria Nöske; Friedrich Scheerer; Boris Schulz; Iris Burck; Jens Wagenblast; J Matthias Kerl; Ralf W Bauer; Thomas Lehnert; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2015-03-26 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Jan-Erik Scholtz; Julian L Wichmann; Kristina Hüsers; Moritz H Albrecht; Martin Beeres; Ralf W Bauer; Thomas J Vogl; Boris Bodelle Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 5.315