Zhihua Qi1, Erica L Gates1, Maureen M O'Brien2, Andrew T Trout3. 1. Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Ave., Cincinnati, OH, 45243, USA. 2. Division of Oncology, Cancer and Blood Disease Institute, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Ave., Cincinnati, OH, 45243, USA. andrew.trout@cchmc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both [F-18]2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) and diagnostic CT are at times required for lymphoma staging. This means some body segments are exposed twice to X-rays for generation of CT data (diagnostic CT + localization CT). OBJECTIVE: To describe a combined PET/diagnostic CT approach that modulates CT tube current along the z-axis, providing diagnostic CT of some body segments and localization CT of the remaining body segments, thereby reducing patient radiation dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively compared total patient radiation dose between combined PET/diagnostic CT and separately acquired PET/CT and diagnostic CT exams. When available, we calculated effective doses for both approaches in the same patient; otherwise, we used data from patients of similar size. To confirm image quality, we compared image noise (Hounsfield unit [HU] standard deviation) as measured in the liver on both combined and separately acquired diagnostic CT images. We used t-tests for dose comparisons and two one-sided tests for image-quality equivalence testing. RESULTS: Mean total effective dose for the CT component of the combined and separately acquired diagnostic CT exams were 6.20±2.69 and 8.17±2.61 mSv, respectively (P<0.0001). Average dose savings with the combined approach was 24.8±17.8% (2.60±2.51 mSv [range: 0.32-4.72 mSv]) of total CT effective dose. Image noise was not statistically significantly different between approaches (12.2±1.8 HU vs. 11.7±1.5 HU for the combined and separately acquired diagnostic CT images, respectively). CONCLUSION: A combined PET/diagnostic CT approach as described offers dose savings at similar image quality for children and young adults with lymphoma who have indications for both PET and diagnostic CT examinations.
BACKGROUND: Both [F-18]2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) and diagnostic CT are at times required for lymphoma staging. This means some body segments are exposed twice to X-rays for generation of CT data (diagnostic CT + localization CT). OBJECTIVE: To describe a combined PET/diagnostic CT approach that modulates CT tube current along the z-axis, providing diagnostic CT of some body segments and localization CT of the remaining body segments, thereby reducing patient radiation dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively compared total patient radiation dose between combined PET/diagnostic CT and separately acquired PET/CT and diagnostic CT exams. When available, we calculated effective doses for both approaches in the same patient; otherwise, we used data from patients of similar size. To confirm image quality, we compared image noise (Hounsfield unit [HU] standard deviation) as measured in the liver on both combined and separately acquired diagnostic CT images. We used t-tests for dose comparisons and two one-sided tests for image-quality equivalence testing. RESULTS: Mean total effective dose for the CT component of the combined and separately acquired diagnostic CT exams were 6.20±2.69 and 8.17±2.61 mSv, respectively (P<0.0001). Average dose savings with the combined approach was 24.8±17.8% (2.60±2.51 mSv [range: 0.32-4.72 mSv]) of total CT effective dose. Image noise was not statistically significantly different between approaches (12.2±1.8 HU vs. 11.7±1.5 HU for the combined and separately acquired diagnostic CT images, respectively). CONCLUSION: A combined PET/diagnostic CT approach as described offers dose savings at similar image quality for children and young adults with lymphoma who have indications for both PET and diagnostic CT examinations.
Authors: Suzanne L Aquino; Landon B Kuester; Victorine V Muse; Elkan F Halpern; Alan J Fischman Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-03-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Katie W Hulme; John Rong; Beth Chasen; Hubert H Chuang; Dianna D Cody; Franklin C Wong; S Cheenu Kappadath Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Bruce D Cheson; Richard I Fisher; Sally F Barrington; Franco Cavalli; Lawrence H Schwartz; Emanuele Zucca; T Andrew Lister Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: William L Simpson; Karen M Lee; Ninoska Sosa; Nancy Cooper; Eileen Scigliano; Joshua D Brody; John T Doucette; Lale Kostakoglu Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2015-11-16
Authors: K U Juergens; M Weckesser; L Stegger; C Franzius; M Beetz; O Schober; W Heindel; D Wormanns Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Niklaus G Schaefer; Thomas F Hany; Christian Taverna; Burkhardt Seifert; Katrin D M Stumpe; Gustav K von Schulthess; Gerhard W Goerres Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-07-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sally F Barrington; Amy A Kirkwood; Antonella Franceschetto; Michael J Fulham; Thomas H Roberts; Helén Almquist; Eva Brun; Karin Hjorthaug; Zaid N Viney; Lucy C Pike; Massimo Federico; Stefano Luminari; John Radford; Judith Trotman; Alexander Fosså; Leanne Berkahn; Daniel Molin; Francesco D'Amore; Donald A Sinclair; Paul Smith; Michael J O'Doherty; Lindsey Stevens; Peter W Johnson Journal: Blood Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 22.113