OBJECTIVES: To determine the radiation dose, image quality, and clinical utility of non-enhanced chest CT with spectral filtration. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 25 non-contrast chest CT examinations acquired with spectral filtration (tin-filtered Sn100 kVp spectrum) compared to 25 examinations acquired without spectral filtration (120 kV). Radiation metrics were compared. Image noise was measured. Contrast-to-noise-ratio (CNR) and figure-of-merit (FOM) were calculated. Diagnostic confidence for the assessment of various thoracic pathologies was rated by two independent readers. RESULTS: Effective chest diameters were comparable between groups (P = 0.613). In spectral filtration CT, median CTDIvol, DLP, and size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) were reduced (0.46 vs. 4.3 mGy, 16 vs. 141 mGy*cm, and 0.65 vs. 5.9 mGy, all P < 0.001). Spectral filtration CT had higher image noise (21.3 vs. 13.2 HU, P < 0.001) and lower CNR (47.2 vs. 75.3, P < 0.001), but was more dose-efficient (FOM 10,659 vs. 2,231/mSv, P < 0.001). Diagnostic confidence for parenchymal lung disease and osseous pathologies was lower with spectral filtration CT, but no significant difference was found for pleural pathologies, pulmonary nodules, or pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: Non-contrast chest CT using spectral filtration appears to be sufficient for the assessment of a considerable spectrum of thoracic pathologies, while providing superior dose efficiency, allowing for substantial radiation dose reduction. KEY POINTS: • Spectral filtration enables non-contrast chest CT with very high dose efficiency. • This approach reduces CTDI vol , DLP, and SSDE (effective chest diameter 28 cm). • Lung nodules, pneumonia, and pleural pathologies can be assessed with uncompromised confidence.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the radiation dose, image quality, and clinical utility of non-enhanced chest CT with spectral filtration. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 25 non-contrast chest CT examinations acquired with spectral filtration (tin-filtered Sn100 kVp spectrum) compared to 25 examinations acquired without spectral filtration (120 kV). Radiation metrics were compared. Image noise was measured. Contrast-to-noise-ratio (CNR) and figure-of-merit (FOM) were calculated. Diagnostic confidence for the assessment of various thoracic pathologies was rated by two independent readers. RESULTS: Effective chest diameters were comparable between groups (P = 0.613). In spectral filtration CT, median CTDIvol, DLP, and size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) were reduced (0.46 vs. 4.3 mGy, 16 vs. 141 mGy*cm, and 0.65 vs. 5.9 mGy, all P < 0.001). Spectral filtration CT had higher image noise (21.3 vs. 13.2 HU, P < 0.001) and lower CNR (47.2 vs. 75.3, P < 0.001), but was more dose-efficient (FOM 10,659 vs. 2,231/mSv, P < 0.001). Diagnostic confidence for parenchymal lung disease and osseous pathologies was lower with spectral filtration CT, but no significant difference was found for pleural pathologies, pulmonary nodules, or pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: Non-contrast chest CT using spectral filtration appears to be sufficient for the assessment of a considerable spectrum of thoracic pathologies, while providing superior dose efficiency, allowing for substantial radiation dose reduction. KEY POINTS: • Spectral filtration enables non-contrast chest CT with very high dose efficiency. • This approach reduces CTDI vol , DLP, and SSDE (effective chest diameter 28 cm). • Lung nodules, pneumonia, and pleural pathologies can be assessed with uncompromised confidence.
Authors: Stephan Baumueller; Anna Winklehner; Christoph Karlo; Robert Goetti; Thomas Flohr; Erich W Russi; Thomas Frauenfelder; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jodie A Christner; Natalie N Braun; Megan C Jacobsen; Rickey E Carter; James M Kofler; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Felix G Meinel; Christian Canstein; U Joseph Schoepf; Martin Sedlmaier; Bernhard Schmidt; Brett S Harris; Thomas G Flohr; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Daniele Marin; Rendon C Nelson; Sebastian T Schindera; Samuel Richard; Richard S Youngblood; Terry T Yoshizumi; Ehsan Samei Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Boris Bodelle; Constanze Fischbach; Christian Booz; Ibrahim Yel; Claudia Frellesen; Moritz Kaup; Martin Beeres; Thomas J Vogl; Jan-Erik Scholtz Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2017-03-28
Authors: Rolf Symons; Amir Pourmorteza; Veit Sandfort; Mark A Ahlman; Tracy Cropper; Marissa Mallek; Steffen Kappler; Stefan Ulzheimer; Mahadevappa Mahesh; Elizabeth C Jones; Ashkan A Malayeri; Les R Folio; David A Bluemke Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-07-28 Impact factor: 11.105
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
Authors: Saravanabavaan Suntharalingam; Christian Mikat; Axel Wetter; Nika Guberina; Ahmed Salem; Philipp Heil; Michael Forsting; Kai Nassenstein Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christoph Schabel; Daniele Marin; Dominik Ketelsen; Alfredo E Farjat; Georg Bier; Mario Lescan; Fabian Bamberg; Konstantin Nikolaou; Malte N Bongers Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Bernhard Petritsch; Pauline Pannenbecker; Andreas M Weng; Jan-Peter Grunz; Simon Veldhoen; Thorsten A Bley; Aleksander Kosmala Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-05