Yasunori Nagayama1,2, Takeshi Nakaura3, Akinori Tsuji4, Joji Urata4, Mitsuhiro Furusawa4, Hideaki Yuki3, Kenichiro Hirarta3, Masafumi Kidoh3, Seitaro Oda3, Daisuke Utsunomiya3, Yasuyuki Yamashita3. 1. Department of Radiology, Kumamoto City Hospital, 1-1-60, Koto, Higashi-ku, Kumamoto, 862-0909, Japan. y.nagayama1980@gmail.com. 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1, Honjyo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan. y.nagayama1980@gmail.com. 3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1, Honjyo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan. 4. Department of Radiology, Kumamoto City Hospital, 1-1-60, Koto, Higashi-ku, Kumamoto, 862-0909, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively evaluate the image quality and radiation dose of 100-kVp scans with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (IR) for unenhanced head CT in adolescents. METHODS: Sixty-nine patients aged 12-17 years underwent head CT under 120- (n = 34) or 100-kVp (n = 35) protocols. The 120-kVp images were reconstructed with filtered back-projection (FBP), 100-kVp images with FBP (100-kVp-F) and sinogram-affirmed IR (100-kVp-S). We compared the effective dose (ED), grey-white matter (GM-WM) contrast, image noise, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) between protocols in supratentorial (ST) and posterior fossa (PS). We also assessed GM-WM contrast, image noise, sharpness, artifacts, and overall image quality on a four-point scale. RESULTS: ED was 46% lower with 100- than 120-kVp (p < 0.001). GM-WM contrast was higher, and image noise was lower, on 100-kVp-S than 120-kVp at ST (p < 0.001). CNR of 100-kVp-S was higher than of 120-kVp (p < 0.001). GM-WM contrast of 100-kVp-S was subjectively rated as better than of 120-kVp (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the other criteria between 100-kVp-S and 120-kVp (p = 0.072-0.966). CONCLUSIONS: The 100-kVp with sinogram-affirmed IR facilitated dramatic radiation reduction and better GM-WM contrast without increasing image noise in adolescent head CT. KEY POINTS: • 100-kVp head CT provides 46% radiation dose reduction compared with 120-kVp. • 100-kVp scanning improves subjective and objective GM-WM contrast. • Sinogram-affirmed IR decreases head CT image noise, especially in supratentorial region. • 100-kVp protocol with sinogram-affirmed IR is suited for adolescent head CT.
OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively evaluate the image quality and radiation dose of 100-kVp scans with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (IR) for unenhanced head CT in adolescents. METHODS: Sixty-nine patients aged 12-17 years underwent head CT under 120- (n = 34) or 100-kVp (n = 35) protocols. The 120-kVp images were reconstructed with filtered back-projection (FBP), 100-kVp images with FBP (100-kVp-F) and sinogram-affirmed IR (100-kVp-S). We compared the effective dose (ED), grey-white matter (GM-WM) contrast, image noise, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) between protocols in supratentorial (ST) and posterior fossa (PS). We also assessed GM-WM contrast, image noise, sharpness, artifacts, and overall image quality on a four-point scale. RESULTS: ED was 46% lower with 100- than 120-kVp (p < 0.001). GM-WM contrast was higher, and image noise was lower, on 100-kVp-S than 120-kVp at ST (p < 0.001). CNR of 100-kVp-S was higher than of 120-kVp (p < 0.001). GM-WM contrast of 100-kVp-S was subjectively rated as better than of 120-kVp (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the other criteria between 100-kVp-S and 120-kVp (p = 0.072-0.966). CONCLUSIONS: The 100-kVp with sinogram-affirmed IR facilitated dramatic radiation reduction and better GM-WM contrast without increasing image noise in adolescent head CT. KEY POINTS: • 100-kVp head CT provides 46% radiation dose reduction compared with 120-kVp. • 100-kVp scanning improves subjective and objective GM-WM contrast. • Sinogram-affirmed IR decreases head CT image noise, especially in supratentorial region. • 100-kVp protocol with sinogram-affirmed IR is suited for adolescent head CT.
Authors: A Korn; B Bender; M Fenchel; D Spira; C Schabel; C Thomas; T Flohr; C D Claussen; R Bhadelia; U Ernemann; H Brodoefel Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-04-12 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Joshua S Easter; Katherine Bakes; Jasmeet Dhaliwal; Michael Miller; Emily Caruso; Jason S Haukoos Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Ajit H Goenka; Brian R Herts; Nancy A Obuchowski; Andrew N Primak; Frank Dong; Wadih Karim; Mark E Baker Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: D Hirtz; S Ashwal; A Berg; D Bettis; C Camfield; P Camfield; P Crumrine; R Elterman; S Schneider; S Shinnar Journal: Neurology Date: 2000-09-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Carter Craddock; Michael Y Chen; Robert L Dixon; Christopher A Schlarb; Daniel W Williams Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2006 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: John D Mathews; Anna V Forsythe; Zoe Brady; Martin W Butler; Stacy K Goergen; Graham B Byrnes; Graham G Giles; Anthony B Wallace; Philip R Anderson; Tenniel A Guiver; Paul McGale; Timothy M Cain; James G Dowty; Adrian C Bickerstaffe; Sarah C Darby Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-05-21
Authors: Y Nagayama; S Tanoue; S Oda; D Sakabe; T Emoto; M Kidoh; H Uetani; A Sasao; T Nakaura; O Ikeda; K Yamada; Y Yamashita Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-12-26 Impact factor: 3.825