F van Ommen1, H W A M de Jong2, J W Dankbaar3, E Bennink4, T Leiner5, A M R Schilham6. 1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, UMC Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, Netherlands; Image Sciences Institute, UMC Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, Netherlands. Electronic address: F.vanOmmen@umcutrecht.nl. 2. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, UMC Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, Netherlands; Image Sciences Institute, UMC Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, Netherlands. Electronic address: H.W.A.M.deJong@umcutrecht.nl. 3. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, UMC Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, Netherlands. Electronic address: J.W.Dankbaar@umcutrecht.nl. 4. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, UMC Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, Netherlands; Image Sciences Institute, UMC Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, Netherlands. Electronic address: H.E.Bennink-2@umcutrecht.nl. 5. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, UMC Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, Netherlands. Electronic address: T.Leiner@umcutrecht.nl. 6. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, UMC Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, Netherlands. Electronic address: A.Schilham@umcutrecht.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the radiation dose associated with always-on dual-energy acquisitions in clinical practice over a broad range of clinical protocols using a dual-layer detector CT (DLCT; IQon spectral CT, Philips Healthcare) as compared to an otherwise technically equivalent single-layer detector CT (SLCT; Brilliance iCT, Philips healthcare). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dose-length-product data for consecutive examinations over a six-month period acquired with DLCT were retrospectively collected and compared to consecutive examinations from an SLCT. Imaging protocols were optimized for diagnostic image quality for each system prior to data collection. Dose reports of CT protocols that were used at least 50 times on both systems were collected. After exclusion of statistical outliers, protocols were evaluated with regard to reported dose levels. RESULTS: In total, 4536 dose reports for DLCT and 5783 reports for SLCT were collected. All DLCT examinations were acquired at 120 kVp, enabling dual-energy analysis. With SLCT, 79% of examinations were acquired at 120 kVp, and 21% at 100/80 kVp. Protocols for 15 indications were used more than 50 times on both scanners. For seven protocols there was no significant difference between the two scanners (p > 0.05), whereas seven protocols were acquired with higher dose levels on SLCT compared to the DLCT (p < 0.03). For one protocol, the DLCT dose was significantly higher (p < 0.005) compared to the SLCT. CONCLUSION: Dual-layer detector CT enables acquisition of dual-energy information over a broad range of clinical indications without increasing radiation dose when compared to a conventional single-layer detector CT.
PURPOSE: To assess the radiation dose associated with always-on dual-energy acquisitions in clinical practice over a broad range of clinical protocols using a dual-layer detector CT (DLCT; IQon spectral CT, Philips Healthcare) as compared to an otherwise technically equivalent single-layer detector CT (SLCT; Brilliance iCT, Philips healthcare). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dose-length-product data for consecutive examinations over a six-month period acquired with DLCT were retrospectively collected and compared to consecutive examinations from an SLCT. Imaging protocols were optimized for diagnostic image quality for each system prior to data collection. Dose reports of CT protocols that were used at least 50 times on both systems were collected. After exclusion of statistical outliers, protocols were evaluated with regard to reported dose levels. RESULTS: In total, 4536 dose reports for DLCT and 5783 reports for SLCT were collected. All DLCT examinations were acquired at 120 kVp, enabling dual-energy analysis. With SLCT, 79% of examinations were acquired at 120 kVp, and 21% at 100/80 kVp. Protocols for 15 indications were used more than 50 times on both scanners. For seven protocols there was no significant difference between the two scanners (p > 0.05), whereas seven protocols were acquired with higher dose levels on SLCT compared to the DLCT (p < 0.03). For one protocol, the DLCT dose was significantly higher (p < 0.005) compared to the SLCT. CONCLUSION: Dual-layer detector CT enables acquisition of dual-energy information over a broad range of clinical indications without increasing radiation dose when compared to a conventional single-layer detector CT.
Authors: Simon Lennartz; Nils Große Hokamp; Charlotte Zäske; David Zopfs; Grischa Bratke; Andreas Glauner; David Maintz; Thorsten Persigehl; De-Hua Chang; Tilman Hickethier Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: C C-T Hsu; C Jeavon; I Fomin; L Du; C Buchan; T W Watkins; Y Nae; N M Parry; R I Aviv Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 4.966