Xiao Kun Fang1, Qian Qian Ni1, U Joseph Schoepf1,2, Chang Sheng Zhou1, Guo Zhong Chen1, Song Luo1, Stephen R Fuller2, Carlo N De Cecco2, Long Jiang Zhang3, Guang Ming Lu4. 1. Department of Medical Imaging, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210002, China. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Medical University of South Carolina, Ashley River Tower, MSC 226, 25 Courtenay Dr, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. 3. Department of Medical Imaging, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210002, China. kevinzhlj@163.com. 4. Department of Medical Imaging, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210002, China. cjr.luguangming@vip.163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate image quality and diagnostic accuracy for acute infarct detection and radiation dose of 70 kVp whole brain CT perfusion (CTP) and CT angiography (CTA) reconstructed from CTP source data. METHODS: Patients were divided into three groups (n = 50 each): group A, 80 kVp, 21 scanning time points; groups B, 70 kVp, 21 scanning time points; group C, 70 kVp, 17 scanning time points. Objective and subjective image quality of CTP and CTA were compared. Diagnostic accuracy for detecting acute infarct and cerebral artery stenosis ≥ 50 % was calculated for CTP and CTA with diffusion weighted imaging and digital subtraction angiography as reference standards. Effective radiation dose was compared. RESULTS: There were no differences in any perfusion parameter value between three groups (P > 0.05). No difference was found in subjective image quality between three groups (P > 0.05). Diagnostic accuracy for detecting acute infarct and vascular stenosis showed no difference between three groups (P > 0.05). Compared with group A, radiation doses of groups B and C were decreased by 28 % and 37 % (both P < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Compared with 80 kVp protocol, 70 kVp brain CTP allows comparable vascular and perfusion assessment and lower radiation dose while maintaining high diagnostic accuracy in detecting acute infarct. KEY POINTS: • 70 kVp whole brain CTP can provide diagnostic image quality. • 70 kVp CTP diagnostic accuracy was maintained vs. 80 kVp protocol. • 70 kVp CTP radiation doses were lower than 80 kVp protocol.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate image quality and diagnostic accuracy for acute infarct detection and radiation dose of 70 kVp whole brain CT perfusion (CTP) and CT angiography (CTA) reconstructed from CTP source data. METHODS:Patients were divided into three groups (n = 50 each): group A, 80 kVp, 21 scanning time points; groups B, 70 kVp, 21 scanning time points; group C, 70 kVp, 17 scanning time points. Objective and subjective image quality of CTP and CTA were compared. Diagnostic accuracy for detecting acute infarct and cerebral artery stenosis ≥ 50 % was calculated for CTP and CTA with diffusion weighted imaging and digital subtraction angiography as reference standards. Effective radiation dose was compared. RESULTS: There were no differences in any perfusion parameter value between three groups (P > 0.05). No difference was found in subjective image quality between three groups (P > 0.05). Diagnostic accuracy for detecting acute infarct and vascular stenosis showed no difference between three groups (P > 0.05). Compared with group A, radiation doses of groups B and C were decreased by 28 % and 37 % (both P < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Compared with 80 kVp protocol, 70 kVp brain CTP allows comparable vascular and perfusion assessment and lower radiation dose while maintaining high diagnostic accuracy in detecting acute infarct. KEY POINTS: • 70 kVp whole brain CTP can provide diagnostic image quality. • 70 kVp CTP diagnostic accuracy was maintained vs. 80 kVp protocol. • 70 kVp CTP radiation doses were lower than 80 kVp protocol.
Authors: Ellen G Hoeffner; Ian Case; Rajan Jain; Sachin K Gujar; Gaurang V Shah; John P Deveikis; Ruth C Carlos; B Gregory Thompson; Mark R Harrigan; Suresh K Mukherji Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-04-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C J Lin; T H Wu; C H Lin; S C Hung; C F Chiu; M-J Liu; M M H Teng; F C Chang; W Y Guo; C Y Chang Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-04-11 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Long Jiang Zhang; Li Qi; Jing Wang; Chun Xiang Tang; Chang Sheng Zhou; Xue Man Ji; James V Spearman; Carlo Nicola De Cecco; Felix G Meinel; U Joseph Schoepf; Guang Ming Lu Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-04-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Holger Haubenreisser; Christian Fink; John W Nance; Martin Sedlmair; Bernhard Schmidt; Stefan O Schoenberg; Thomas Henzler Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Long Jiang Zhang; Yining Wang; U Joseph Schoepf; Felix G Meinel; Richard R Bayer; Li Qi; Jian Cao; Chang Sheng Zhou; Yan E Zhao; Xie Li; Jian Bin Gong; Zhengyu Jin; Guang Ming Lu Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Stephan P Kloska; Tobias Fischer; Cristina Sauerland; Boris Buerke; Rainer Dziewas; Roman Fischbach; Walter Heindel Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2009-09-05 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Richard I Aviv; Christopher D d'Esterre; Blake D Murphy; Julia J Hopyan; Brian Buck; Gabriella Mallia; Vivian Li; Liying Zhang; Sean P Symons; Ting-Yim Lee Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Adrien Guenego; Pascal J Mosimann; Vitor Mendes Pereira; Patrick Nicholson; Kevin Zuber; Jean Albert Lotterie; Tomas Dobrocky; David G Marcellus; Jean Marc Olivot; Michel Piotin; Jan Gralla; Robert Fahed; Max Wintermark; Jeremy J Heit; Christophe Cognard Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-03-22 Impact factor: 5.315