Yin P Goh1, Kenneth K Lau2,3, Keat Low2, Kevin Buchan4, Lawrence Chia Wei Oh5, Ahilan Kuganesan2, Minh Huynh6. 1. Diagnostic Imaging Department, Monash Health, 246, Clayton Road, Clayton, 3168, Victoria, Australia. yinpeng.goh@gmail.com. 2. Diagnostic Imaging Department, Monash Health, 246, Clayton Road, Clayton, 3168, Victoria, Australia. 3. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Victoria, Australia. 4. Clinical Science, Philips Healthcare, PO Box 312, Mont Albert, 3127, Victoria, Australia. 5. Division of Medical Imaging, Flinders Medical Centre, Flinders Drive, Bedford Park South, Australia, 5042. 6. Department of Statistics, Data Science and Epidemiology, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University, Hawthorn, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the image quality between fine focal spot size (FFSS) and standard focal spot size (SFSS) in computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis (CTAP) METHODS: This retrospective review included all consecutive adult patients undergoing contrast-enhanced CTAP between June and September 2014. Two blinded radiologists assessed the margin clarity of the abdominal viscera and the detected lesions using a five-point grading scale. Cohen's kappa test was used to examine the inter-observer reliability between the two reviewers for organ margin clarity. Mann-Whitney U testing was utilised to assess the statistical difference of the organ and lesion margin clarity. RESULTS: 100 consecutive CTAPs were recruited. 52 CTAPs were examined with SFSS of 1.1 × 1.2 mm and 48 CTAPs were examined with FFSS of 0.6 × 0.7 mm. Results showed that there was substantial agreement for organ margin clarity (mean κ = 0.759, p < 0.001) among the reviewers. FFSS produces images with clearer organ margins (U = 76194.0, p < 0.001, r = 0.523) and clearer lesion margins (U = 239, p = 0.052, r = 0.269). CONCLUSION: FFSS CTAP improves image quality in terms of better organ and lesion margin clarity. Fine focus CT scanning is a novel technique that may be applied in routine CTAP imaging. KEY POINTS: • Fine focal spot improves organ margin clarity. • Fine focal spot improves lesion margin clarity. • Fine focal spot can be used in routine CT abdominal imaging.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the image quality between fine focal spot size (FFSS) and standard focal spot size (SFSS) in computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis (CTAP) METHODS: This retrospective review included all consecutive adult patients undergoing contrast-enhanced CTAP between June and September 2014. Two blinded radiologists assessed the margin clarity of the abdominal viscera and the detected lesions using a five-point grading scale. Cohen's kappa test was used to examine the inter-observer reliability between the two reviewers for organ margin clarity. Mann-Whitney U testing was utilised to assess the statistical difference of the organ and lesion margin clarity. RESULTS: 100 consecutive CTAPs were recruited. 52 CTAPs were examined with SFSS of 1.1 × 1.2 mm and 48 CTAPs were examined with FFSS of 0.6 × 0.7 mm. Results showed that there was substantial agreement for organ margin clarity (mean κ = 0.759, p < 0.001) among the reviewers. FFSS produces images with clearer organ margins (U = 76194.0, p < 0.001, r = 0.523) and clearer lesion margins (U = 239, p = 0.052, r = 0.269). CONCLUSION: FFSS CTAP improves image quality in terms of better organ and lesion margin clarity. Fine focus CT scanning is a novel technique that may be applied in routine CTAP imaging. KEY POINTS: • Fine focal spot improves organ margin clarity. • Fine focal spot improves lesion margin clarity. • Fine focal spot can be used in routine CT abdominal imaging.
Entities:
Keywords:
CT abdomen and pelvis; Fine focal spot; High-resolution imaging; Low radiation dose; Margin clarity
Authors: C Catalano; F Fraioli; A Laghi; A Napoli; F Pediconi; M Danti; P Nardis; R Passariello Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Peter B Noël; Alexander A Fingerle; Bernhard Renger; Daniela Münzel; Ernst J Rummeny; Martin Dobritz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Boaz Karmazyn; Yun Liang; Huisi Ai; George J Eckert; Mervyn D Cohen; Matthew R Wanner; S Gregory Jennings Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Kristin Jensen; Anne Catrine T Martinsen; Anders Tingberg; Trond Mogens Aaløkken; Erik Fosse Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Michael A Blake; Brian C Lucey; Kelly Karau; Thomas L Toth; Gopal Avinash; Elkan F Halpern; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: I Arapakis; E Efstathopoulos; V Tsitsia; S Kordolaimi; N Economopoulos; S Argentos; A Ploussi; E Alexopoulou Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 3.039