Xiaowei Zhu1,2, William P McCullough3, Patricia Mecca1, Sabah Servaes1,2, Kassa Darge1,2. 1. Department of Radiology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2. The Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health System, P.O. Box 800170, Charlottesville, VA, 22908-0170, USA. wpm2k@virginia.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dual-energy CT technology is available on scanners from several vendors and offers significant advantages over classic single-energy CT technology in multiple clinical applications. Many studies have detailed dual-energy CT applications in adults and several have evaluated the relative radiation dose performance of dual-energy CT in adult imaging. However, little has been published on dual-energy CT imaging in the pediatric population, and the relative dose performance of dual-energy CT imaging in the pediatric population is not well described. OBJECTIVE: When evaluating dual-energy CT technology for implementation into a routine clinical pediatric imaging practice, the radiation dose implications must be considered, and when comparing relative CT dose performance, image quality must also be evaluated. Therefore the purpose of this study is to develop dual-energy CT scan protocols based on our optimized single-energy scan protocols and compare the dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We scanned the head, chest and abdomen regions of pediatric-size anthropomorphic phantoms with contrast inserts, using our optimized single-energy clinical imaging protocols on a Siemens Flash® CT scanner. We then scanned the phantoms in dual-energy mode using matching image-quality reference settings. The effective CT dose index volume (CTDIvol) of the scans was used as a surrogate for relative dose in comparing the single- and dual-energy scans. Additionally, we evaluated image quality using visual assessment and contrast-to-noise ratio. RESULTS: Dual-energy CT scans of the head and abdomen were dose-neutral for all three phantoms. Dual-energy CT scans of the chest showed a relative dose increase over the single-energy scan for 1- and 5-year-old child-based age-equivalent phantoms, ranging 11-20%. Quantitative analysis of image quality showed no statistically significant difference in image quality between the single-energy and dual-energy scans. There was no clinically significant difference in image quality by visual assessment. CONCLUSION: Dual-energy CT is dose-neutral in imaging the head and abdomen in children. It is not dose-neutral in chest imaging of very small children. With a better understanding of the dose consequences of converting single-energy protocols to dual-energy protocols we can begin to implement clinical dual-energy CT and utilize its unique capabilities in pediatric imaging.
BACKGROUND: Dual-energy CT technology is available on scanners from several vendors and offers significant advantages over classic single-energy CT technology in multiple clinical applications. Many studies have detailed dual-energy CT applications in adults and several have evaluated the relative radiation dose performance of dual-energy CT in adult imaging. However, little has been published on dual-energy CT imaging in the pediatric population, and the relative dose performance of dual-energy CT imaging in the pediatric population is not well described. OBJECTIVE: When evaluating dual-energy CT technology for implementation into a routine clinical pediatric imaging practice, the radiation dose implications must be considered, and when comparing relative CT dose performance, image quality must also be evaluated. Therefore the purpose of this study is to develop dual-energy CT scan protocols based on our optimized single-energy scan protocols and compare the dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We scanned the head, chest and abdomen regions of pediatric-size anthropomorphic phantoms with contrast inserts, using our optimized single-energy clinical imaging protocols on a Siemens Flash® CT scanner. We then scanned the phantoms in dual-energy mode using matching image-quality reference settings. The effective CT dose index volume (CTDIvol) of the scans was used as a surrogate for relative dose in comparing the single- and dual-energy scans. Additionally, we evaluated image quality using visual assessment and contrast-to-noise ratio. RESULTS: Dual-energy CT scans of the head and abdomen were dose-neutral for all three phantoms. Dual-energy CT scans of the chest showed a relative dose increase over the single-energy scan for 1- and 5-year-old child-based age-equivalent phantoms, ranging 11-20%. Quantitative analysis of image quality showed no statistically significant difference in image quality between the single-energy and dual-energy scans. There was no clinically significant difference in image quality by visual assessment. CONCLUSION: Dual-energy CT is dose-neutral in imaging the head and abdomen in children. It is not dose-neutral in chest imaging of very small children. With a better understanding of the dose consequences of converting single-energy protocols to dual-energy protocols we can begin to implement clinical dual-energy CT and utilize its unique capabilities in pediatric imaging.
Authors: Jan C Schenzle; Wieland H Sommer; Klement Neumaier; Gisela Michalski; Ursula Lechel; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christoph R Becker; Maximilian F Reiser; Thorsten R C Johnson Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Mohammad Mansouri; Shima Aran; Ajay Singh; Avinash R Kambadakone; Dushyant V Sahani; Michael H Lev; Hani H Abujudeh Journal: Curr Probl Diagn Radiol Date: 2015-04-15
Authors: Boris Schulz; Katharina Kuehling; Wolfgang Kromen; Petra Siebenhandl; Matthias Josef Kerl; Thomas Josef Vogl; Ralf Bauer Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Tyler M Coupal; Paul I Mallinson; Patrick McLaughlin; Savvas Nicolaou; Peter L Munk; Hugue Ouellette Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: X Y Jiang; S H Zhang; Q Z Xie; Z J Yin; Q Y Liu; M D Zhao; X L Li; X J Mao Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Taek Min Kim; Young Hun Choi; Jung Eun Cheon; Woo Sun Kim; In One Kim; Ji Eun Park; Su Mi Shin; Seong Yong Pak; Bernhard Krauss Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Elise D Roele; Veronique C M L Timmer; Lauretta A A Vaassen; Anna M J L van Kroonenburgh; A A Postma Journal: Curr Radiol Rep Date: 2017-03-29