| Literature DB >> 32390122 |
Salar Tofighi1, Saeideh Najafi2, Sean K Johnston1, Ali Gholamrezanezhad1.
Abstract
Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32390122 PMCID: PMC7211266 DOI: 10.1007/s10140-020-01784-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Radiol ISSN: 1070-3004
Fig. 1A 57-year-old male presented with fever and shortness of breath in an epidemic area of COVID-19 (Iran) for diagnostic work-up. Low-dose CT demonstrates multifocal basilar predominant peripheral ground-glass opacities, characteristic of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (a, b). The low-dose CT chest radiation dosimetry of the patient was DLP of 78.34 mGy × cm and CTDIvol of 2.03 mGy. Conventional CT chest protocol in the same patient would result in DLP of 301.14 mGy × cm and CTDIvol of 7.87 mGy, which means that low-dose protocol decreased the radiation dose to less than 50% without a significant impact on the diagnostic value. (CT protocol: 100 kVp, 40 mAs, 0.5 s without iterative reconstruction)
Fig. 2Low-dose chest CT in a 77-year-old male with high-grade fever, shortness of breath, malaise, and cough in an epidemic area of COVID-19 (Iran) demonstrate left upper lobe ground-glass opacity (a). The patient had areas of consolidation superimposed on ground-glass opacity in bilateral lung bases (b). The constellation of findings is in keeping with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. The low-dose CT chest radiation dosimetry of the patient was DLP of 68.21 mGy × cm and CTDIvol of 2.10 mGy. Conventional CT chest protocol in the same patient would result in DLP of 264.55 mGy × cm and CTDIvol of 5.92 mGy, which means that low-dose protocol decreased the radiation dose to about 50% without a significant impact on the diagnostic value. (CT protocol: 100 kVp, 50 mAs, 0.5 s without iterative reconstruction)
Studies assessed application of chest low-dose CT or ultra-low-dose CT in evaluation of pneumonia
| Study | Protocol | Effective dose | IR | Imaging output |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kim et al. (2014) [ | LDCT 120 kVp; 30 mAs | 1.06 ± 0.11 mSv | + | There was no difference in detection of consolidation and GGO. Diagnosis was clear in 100% of LDCT and 96% of ULDCT. |
| ULDCT A 100 kVp; 20 mAs | 0.44 ± 0.05 mSv | + | ||
| ULDCT B 80 kVp; 30 mAs | 0.31 ± 0.0.3 mSv | + | ||
| Dorneles et al. (2018) [ | ULDCT 80 kVp; 15–30 mAs; 0.5 s | 0.39 ± 0.15 mSv | + | Image qualities were excellent or diagnostic in 99% of ULDCTs. |
| Sun et al. (2017) [ | LDCT 120 kVp; 10–350 mAs; 0.8 s | 0.59 ± 0.19 mSv | + | IR demonstrated better detection of pulmonary lesions and lesser noise than FBP. |
| Park et al. (2015) [ | LDCT 100 kVp; 30 mAs; 0.5 s | Not reported | − | LDCT detected GGO and small consolidation which were undetected in radiograph. |
| Dorobisz et al. (2017) [ | LDCT 120 kVp; 25, 50, 75, 100 mAs | 0.748–2.55 mSv | + | LDCT successfully detected GGO and consolidation |
| Alamdaran et al. (2019) [ | LDCT 120 kVp; 30, 50 mAs, | Not reported | − | Diagnoses of LDCTs were concordant with final diagnoses. |
| Kubo et al. (2016) [ | CCT 120 kVp; 150 mAs; 0.5 s | 10.7 | − | There were > 83% concordance between CCT findings and LDCT and no significant difference in detection rate. |
LDCT 120 kVp; 150 mAs; 0.5 s | 3.57 | − | ||
| Christe et al. (2012) [ | CCT 120 mKv; 150 mAs | Not reported | − | LDCT had lower sensitivity for GGO with no significant difference for consolidation. |
LDCT 120 mKv; 40 mAs | Not reported | − | ||
| Ohno et al. (2012) [ | CCT 120kVp; 150mAs; 0.5 s | Not reported | − | Image quality of LDCT methods was significantly low when IR was not applied. There was >80% concordance between detection of GGO and reticular opacities in all three methods. |
LDCT A 120 kVp; 50 mAs; 0.5 s | Not reported | ± | ||
LDCT B 120kVp; 25mAs; 0.5 s | Not reported | ± |
GGO, ground-glass opacity; CCT, conventional CT; LDCT, low-dose CT; ULDCT, ultra-low-dose CT; IR, iterative reconstruction; FBP, filtered back projection