A S Purysko1, A N Primak2, M E Baker3, N A Obuchowski4, E M Remer3, B John5, B R Herts3. 1. Abdominal Imaging Section, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Mail Code L10, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. Electronic address: puryska@ccf.org. 2. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. 51 Valley Stream Parkway, Malvern, PA 19355, USA. 3. Abdominal Imaging Section, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Mail Code L10, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. 4. Quantitative Health Sciences, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Mail Code L10, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. 5. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Digestive Disease Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Mail Code A51, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To compare radiation dose surrogates [volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose-length product (DLP), size-specific dose estimate (SSDE), and effective dose] and image noise in a cohort of patients undergoing hepatocellular carcinoma screening who underwent both single-energy CT (SECT) and dual-energy CT (DECT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant retrospective study, 74 adults (mean age 59.5 years) underwent 64 section SECT (120 kVp and weight-based reference mAs) and 128 section dual-source DECT (100/Sn 140 kVp and CTDIvol, adjusted to match the CDTIvol of the SECT protocol) on different occasions. Noise levels were measured in the liver, inferior vena cava (IVC), retroperitoneal (RP) fat, and aorta. Generalized linear models were constructed to compare dose and noise, adjusting for effective diameter. RESULTS: The total DLP (1371.11 mGy-cm, SD = 527.91) and effective dose (20.57 mSv, SD = 7.92) with SECT were significantly higher than the DLP (864.84 mGy-cm, SD = 322.10) and effective dose (12.97 mSv, SD = 4.83) with DECT (p < 0.001). The differences between SECT and DECT increased as the patient's effective diameter increased (p < 0.001). Noise levels in the liver (22.4 versus 21.9 HU), IVC (22.3 versus 23.4 HU), and RP fat (23.5 versus 23 HU) were similar for DECT and SECT (p > 0.05) but were significantly lower in the aorta for DECT (25.3 versus 26.4 HU; p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: DECT imaging of the abdomen can achieve noise levels comparable to those seen with SECT imaging without a dose penalty to patients.
AIM: To compare radiation dose surrogates [volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose-length product (DLP), size-specific dose estimate (SSDE), and effective dose] and image noise in a cohort of patients undergoing hepatocellular carcinoma screening who underwent both single-energy CT (SECT) and dual-energy CT (DECT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant retrospective study, 74 adults (mean age 59.5 years) underwent 64 section SECT (120 kVp and weight-based reference mAs) and 128 section dual-source DECT (100/Sn 140 kVp and CTDIvol, adjusted to match the CDTIvol of the SECT protocol) on different occasions. Noise levels were measured in the liver, inferior vena cava (IVC), retroperitoneal (RP) fat, and aorta. Generalized linear models were constructed to compare dose and noise, adjusting for effective diameter. RESULTS: The total DLP (1371.11 mGy-cm, SD = 527.91) and effective dose (20.57 mSv, SD = 7.92) with SECT were significantly higher than the DLP (864.84 mGy-cm, SD = 322.10) and effective dose (12.97 mSv, SD = 4.83) with DECT (p < 0.001). The differences between SECT and DECT increased as the patient's effective diameter increased (p < 0.001). Noise levels in the liver (22.4 versus 21.9 HU), IVC (22.3 versus 23.4 HU), and RP fat (23.5 versus 23 HU) were similar for DECT and SECT (p > 0.05) but were significantly lower in the aorta for DECT (25.3 versus 26.4 HU; p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: DECT imaging of the abdomen can achieve noise levels comparable to those seen with SECT imaging without a dose penalty to patients.
Authors: Martin Beeres; Jesko Trommer; Claudia Frellesen; Nour-Eldin A Nour-Eldin; Jan E Scholtz; Eva Herrmann; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-08-02 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Julian L Wichmann; Andrew D Hardie; U Joseph Schoepf; Lloyd M Felmly; Jonathan D Perry; Akos Varga-Szemes; Stefanie Mangold; Damiano Caruso; Christian Canstein; Thomas J Vogl; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-05-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: André Euler; Markus M Obmann; Zsolt Szucs-Farkas; Achille Mileto; Caroline Zaehringer; Anna L Falkowski; David J Winkel; Daniele Marin; Bram Stieltjes; Bernhard Krauss; Sebastian T Schindera Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-02-19 Impact factor: 5.315