Adrian Huber1,2, Julia Landau3, Lukas Ebner3,4, Yanik Bütikofer3, Lars Leidolt3, Barbara Brela3, Michelle May3, Johannes Heverhagen3, Andreas Christe3. 1. Department of Diagnostic, Interventional and Paediatric Radiology, University Hospital Inselspital Bern, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland. adrian.huber@insel.ch. 2. Department of Polyvalent and Oncological Radiology, University Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France. adrian.huber@insel.ch. 3. Department of Diagnostic, Interventional and Paediatric Radiology, University Hospital Inselspital Bern, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland. 4. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the detection rate of pulmonary nodules in ultralow-dose CT acquisitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this lung phantom study, 232 nodules (115 solid, 117 ground-glass) of different sizes were randomly distributed in a lung phantom in 60 different arrangements. Every arrangement was acquired once with standard radiation dose (100 kVp, 100 references mAs) and once with ultralow radiation dose (80 kVp, 6 mAs). Iterative reconstruction was used with optimized kernels: I30 for ultralow-dose, I70 for standard dose and I50 for CAD. Six radiologists examined the axial 1-mm stack for solid and ground-glass nodules. During a second and third step, three radiologists used maximum intensity projection (MIPs), finally checking with computer-assisted detection (CAD), while the others first used CAD, finally checking with the MIPs. RESULTS: The detection rate was 95.5 % with standard dose (DLP 126 mGy*cm) and 93.3 % with ultralow-dose (DLP: 9 mGy*cm). The additional use of either MIP reconstructions or CAD software could compensate for this difference. A combination of both MIP reconstructions and CAD software resulted in a maximum detection rate of 97.5 % with ultralow-dose. CONCLUSION: Lung cancer screening with ultralow-dose CT using the same radiation dose as a conventional chest X-ray is feasible. KEY POINTS: • 93.3 % of all lung nodules were detected with ultralow-dose CT. • A sensitivity of 97.5 % is possible with additional image post-processing. • The radiation dose is comparable to a standard radiography in two planes. • Lung cancer screening with ultralow-dose CT is feasible.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the detection rate of pulmonary nodules in ultralow-dose CT acquisitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this lung phantom study, 232 nodules (115 solid, 117 ground-glass) of different sizes were randomly distributed in a lung phantom in 60 different arrangements. Every arrangement was acquired once with standard radiation dose (100 kVp, 100 references mAs) and once with ultralow radiation dose (80 kVp, 6 mAs). Iterative reconstruction was used with optimized kernels: I30 for ultralow-dose, I70 for standard dose and I50 for CAD. Six radiologists examined the axial 1-mm stack for solid and ground-glass nodules. During a second and third step, three radiologists used maximum intensity projection (MIPs), finally checking with computer-assisted detection (CAD), while the others first used CAD, finally checking with the MIPs. RESULTS: The detection rate was 95.5 % with standard dose (DLP 126 mGy*cm) and 93.3 % with ultralow-dose (DLP: 9 mGy*cm). The additional use of either MIP reconstructions or CAD software could compensate for this difference. A combination of both MIP reconstructions and CAD software resulted in a maximum detection rate of 97.5 % with ultralow-dose. CONCLUSION:Lung cancer screening with ultralow-dose CT using the same radiation dose as a conventional chest X-ray is feasible. KEY POINTS: • 93.3 % of all lung nodules were detected with ultralow-dose CT. • A sensitivity of 97.5 % is possible with additional image post-processing. • The radiation dose is comparable to a standard radiography in two planes. • Lung cancer screening with ultralow-dose CT is feasible.
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: Yingru Zhao; Geertruida H de Bock; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Rob J van Klaveren; Ying Wang; Luca Bogoni; Pim A de Jong; Willem P Mali; Peter M A van Ooijen; Matthijs Oudkerk Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-07-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ji Hoon Park; Jong-June Jeon; Sung Soo Lee; Amar C Dhanantwari; Ji Ye Sim; Hae Young Kim; Kyoung Ho Lee Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Gareth R Iball; Michael Darby; Rhian Gabe; Philip A J Crosbie; Matthew E J Callister Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-09-24 Impact factor: 3.039
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: 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
Authors: Michael Messerli; Thomas Kluckert; Meinhard Knitel; Stephan Wälti; Lotus Desbiolles; Fabian Rengier; René Warschkow; Ralf W Bauer; Hatem Alkadhi; Sebastian Leschka; Simon Wildermuth Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-01-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alan A Peters; Adrian T Huber; Verena C Obmann; Johannes T Heverhagen; Andreas Christe; Lukas Ebner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Caroline Alexandra Burgard; Thomas Gaass; Madeleine Bonert; David Bondesson; Natalie Thaens; Maximilian Ferdinand Reiser; Julien Dinkel Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-01-03 Impact factor: 3.240