Literature DB >> 30699006

Comparison of Radiation Dose and Image Quality of Contrast-Enhanced Dual-Source CT of the Chest: Single-Versus Dual-Energy and Second-Versus Third-Generation Technology.

Lukas Lenga1, Doris Leithner1,2, Julia L Peterke1, Moritz H Albrecht1, Tomas Gudauskas3, Tommaso D'Angelo1,4, Christian Booz1, Renate Hammerstingl1, Thomas J Vogl1, Simon S Martin1, Julian L Wichmann1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare radiation dose and image quality of single- and dual-energy CT (SECT, DECT) examinations of the chest in matched cohorts for second and third-generation dual-source CT (DSCT) systems.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 200 patients (100 men; mean age, 61.7 ± 14.8 years old; 100 women, mean age, 59.4 ± 15.1 years old), matched by sex and body mass index, who had undergone clinically indicated contrast-enhanced chest CT. Four study groups, each consisting of 50 patients, were evaluated. Contrast-enhanced chest CT was performed using vendor-preset second-generation DSCT (group A, 120-kV SECT; group C, 80/Sn140-kV DECT) or third-generation DSCT (group B, 90-kV SECT; group D, 90/Sn150-kV DECT) protocols. Radiation dose assessment was normalized to a scan range of 27.5 cm. Image quality was objectively analyzed using dose-independent figure-of-merit (FOM) contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) calculations and subjectively evaluated by three independent radiologists.
RESULTS: Direct comparison of effective radiation dose for second-generation DSCT groups A and C showed statistically significant lower radiation dose values for DECT compared with SECT acquisition (3.2 ± 1.2 mSv vs 2.3 ± 0.6 mSv, p ≤ 0.004), but differences between third-generation SECT and DECT were not significant (1.2 ± 0.9 mSv vs 1.3 ± 0.6 mSv, p = 0.412). FOM CNR analysis revealed highest values for third-generation DECT (p ≤ 0.043). Differences in subjective image quality between the four groups were not statistically significant (p ≥ 0.179).
CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced DECT examinations of the chest can be performed routinely with second- and third-generation DSCT systems without either increased radiation exposure or decreased image quality compared with SECT acquisition.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MDCT; diagnostic imaging; lung; radiation dose; thorax

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30699006     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.18.20065

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  4 in total

1.  Dual-Energy CT-Based Bone Mineral Density Has Practical Value for Osteoporosis Screening around the Knee.

Authors:  Keun Young Choi; Sheen-Woo Lee; Yong In; Man Soo Kim; Yong Deok Kim; Seung-Yeol Lee; Jin-Woo Lee; In Jun Koh
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2022-08-11       Impact factor: 2.948

2.  Does dual-energy abdominal computed tomography increase the radiation dose to patients: a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Dilip John; Athira R; Swathigha Selvaraj; Rupa Renganathan; Kannan Gunasekaran; Venkatesh Kasi Arunachalam
Journal:  Pol J Radiol       Date:  2021-04-15

3.  Quantitative dual contrast photon-counting computed tomography for assessment of articular cartilage health.

Authors:  Petri Paakkari; Satu I Inkinen; Miitu K M Honkanen; Mithilesh Prakash; Rubina Shaikh; Miika T Nieminen; Mark W Grinstaff; Janne T A Mäkelä; Juha Töyräs; Juuso T J Honkanen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 4.  Virtual non-calcium dual-energy CT: clinical applications.

Authors:  Tommaso D'Angelo; Moritz H Albrecht; Danilo Caudo; Silvio Mazziotti; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann; Simon Martin; Ibrahim Yel; Giorgio Ascenti; Vitali Koch; Giuseppe Cicero; Alfredo Blandino; Christian Booz
Journal:  Eur Radiol Exp       Date:  2021-09-03
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.