Julian L Wichmann1,2, Andrew D Hardie1, U Joseph Schoepf3,4, Lloyd M Felmly1, Jonathan D Perry1, Akos Varga-Szemes1, Stefanie Mangold5, Damiano Caruso1,6, Christian Canstein1,7, Thomas J Vogl2, Carlo N De Cecco1. 1. Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Ashley River Tower, MSC 226, 25 Courtenay Drive, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. 3. Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Ashley River Tower, MSC 226, 25 Courtenay Drive, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. schoepf@musc.edu. 4. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. schoepf@musc.edu. 5. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 6. Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, University of Rome "Sapienza", Latina, Italy. 7. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Malvern, PA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare single-energy (SECT) and dual-energy (DECT) abdominal CT examinations in matched patient cohorts regarding differences in radiation dose and image quality performed with second- and third-generation dual-source CT (DSCT). METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 200 patients (100 male, 100 female; mean age 61.2 ± 13.5 years, mean body mass index 27.5 ± 3.8 kg/m2) equally divided into four groups matched by gender and body mass index, who had undergone portal venous phase abdominal CT with second-generation (group A, 120-kV-SECT; group B, 80/140-kV-DECT) and third-generation DSCT (group C, 100-kV-SECT; group D, 90/150-kV-DECT). The radiation dose was normalised for 40-cm scan length. Dose-independent figure-of-merit (FOM) contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) were calculated for various organs and vessels. Subjective overall image quality and reader confidence were assessed. RESULTS: The effective normalised radiation dose was significantly lower (P < 0.001) in groups C (6.2 ± 2.0 mSv) and D (5.3 ± 1.9 mSv, P = 0.103) compared to groups A (8.8 ± 2.3 mSv) and B (9.7 ± 2.4 mSv, P = 0.102). Dose-independent FOM-CNR peaked for liver, kidney, and portal vein measurements (all P ≤ 0.0285) in group D. Subjective image quality and reader confidence were consistently rated as excellent in all groups (all ≥1.53 out of 5). CONCLUSIONS: With both DSCT generations, abdominal DECT can be routinely performed without radiation dose penalty compared to SECT, while third-generation DSCT shows improved dose efficiency. KEY POINTS: • Dual-source CT (DSCT) allows for single- and dual-energy image acquisition. • Dual-energy acquisition does not increase the radiation dose in abdominal DSCT. • Third-generation DSCT shows improved dose efficiency compared to second-generation DSCT. • Dose-independent figure-of-merit image contrast was highest with third-generation dual-energy DSCT. • Third-generation DSCT shows improved dose efficiency for SECT and DECT.
OBJECTIVES: To compare single-energy (SECT) and dual-energy (DECT) abdominal CT examinations in matched patient cohorts regarding differences in radiation dose and image quality performed with second- and third-generation dual-source CT (DSCT). METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 200 patients (100 male, 100 female; mean age 61.2 ± 13.5 years, mean body mass index 27.5 ± 3.8 kg/m2) equally divided into four groups matched by gender and body mass index, who had undergone portal venous phase abdominal CT with second-generation (group A, 120-kV-SECT; group B, 80/140-kV-DECT) and third-generation DSCT (group C, 100-kV-SECT; group D, 90/150-kV-DECT). The radiation dose was normalised for 40-cm scan length. Dose-independent figure-of-merit (FOM) contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) were calculated for various organs and vessels. Subjective overall image quality and reader confidence were assessed. RESULTS: The effective normalised radiation dose was significantly lower (P < 0.001) in groups C (6.2 ± 2.0 mSv) and D (5.3 ± 1.9 mSv, P = 0.103) compared to groups A (8.8 ± 2.3 mSv) and B (9.7 ± 2.4 mSv, P = 0.102). Dose-independent FOM-CNR peaked for liver, kidney, and portal vein measurements (all P ≤ 0.0285) in group D. Subjective image quality and reader confidence were consistently rated as excellent in all groups (all ≥1.53 out of 5). CONCLUSIONS: With both DSCT generations, abdominal DECT can be routinely performed without radiation dose penalty compared to SECT, while third-generation DSCT shows improved dose efficiency. KEY POINTS: • Dual-source CT (DSCT) allows for single- and dual-energy image acquisition. • Dual-energy acquisition does not increase the radiation dose in abdominal DSCT. • Third-generation DSCT shows improved dose efficiency compared to second-generation DSCT. • Dose-independent figure-of-merit image contrast was highest with third-generation dual-energy DSCT. • Third-generation DSCT shows improved dose efficiency for SECT and DECT.
Authors: Alvin C Silva; Brian G Morse; Amy K Hara; Robert G Paden; Norio Hongo; William Pavlicek Journal: Radiographics Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Felix G Meinel; Bernhard Bischoff; Qiaowei Zhang; Fabian Bamberg; Maximilian F Reiser; Thorsten R C Johnson Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Carlo Nicola De Cecco; Anna Darnell; Napoleón Macías; Juan Ramón Ayuso; Sonia Rodríguez; Jordi Rimola; Mario Pagés; Ángeles García-Criado; Marco Rengo; Giuseppe Muscogiuri; Andrea Laghi; Carmen Ayuso Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Anno Graser; Thorsten R C Johnson; Markus Bader; Michael Staehler; Nicolas Haseke; Konstantin Nikolaou; Maximilian F Reiser; Christian G Stief; Christoph R Becker Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Robert Forbrig; Lucas L Geyer; Robert Stahl; Jun Thorsteinsdottir; Christian Schichor; Friedrich-Wilhelm Kreth; Maximilian Patzig; Moriz Herzberg; Thomas Liebig; Franziska Dorn; Christoph G Trumm Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-01-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: K Hellbach; A Sterzik; W Sommer; M Karpitschka; N Hummel; J Casuscelli; M Ingrisch; M Schlemmer; A Graser; Michael Staehler Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Carlo N De Cecco; Damiano Caruso; U Joseph Schoepf; Domenico De Santis; Giuseppe Muscogiuri; Moritz H Albrecht; Felix G Meinel; Julian L Wichmann; Philip F Burchett; Akos Varga-Szemes; Douglas H Sheafor; Andrew D Hardie Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-02-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Lukas Lenga; Franziska Trapp; Moritz H Albrecht; Julian L Wichmann; Addison A Johnson; Ibrahim Yel; Tommaso D'Angelo; Christian Booz; Thomas J Vogl; Simon S Martin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-01-21 Impact factor: 5.315