BACKGROUND: The effects of dose reduction in lung nodule detection need better understanding. PURPOSE: To compare the detection rate of simulated lung nodules in a chest phantom using different computed tomography protocols, low dose (LD), ultralow dose (ULD), and conventional (CCT), and to quantify their respective amount of radiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A chest phantom containing 93 simulated lung nodules was scanned using five different protocols: ULD (80 kVp/30 mA), LD A (120 kVp/20 mA), LD B (100 kVp/30 mA), LD C (120 kVp/30 mA), and CCT (120 kVp/automatic mA). Four chest radiologists analyzed a selected image from each protocol and registered in diagrams the nodules they detected. Kruskal-Wallis and McNemar's tests were performed to determine the difference in nodule detection. Equivalent doses were estimated by placing thermoluminescent dosimeters on the surface and inside the phantom. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in lung nodules' detection when comparing ULD and LD protocols (p=0.208 to p=1.000), but there was a significant difference when comparing each one of those against CCT (p < 0.001). The detection rate of nodules with CT attenuation values lower than -600 HU was also different when comparing all protocols against CCT (p < 0.001 to p=0.007). There was at least moderate agreement between observers in all protocols (κ-value >0.41). Equivalent dose values ranged from 0.5 to 9 mSv. CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in simulated lung nodules' detection when comparing ULD and LD protocols, but both differ from CCT, especially when considering lower-attenuating nodules.
BACKGROUND: The effects of dose reduction in lung nodule detection need better understanding. PURPOSE: To compare the detection rate of simulated lung nodules in a chest phantom using different computed tomography protocols, low dose (LD), ultralow dose (ULD), and conventional (CCT), and to quantify their respective amount of radiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A chest phantom containing 93 simulated lung nodules was scanned using five different protocols: ULD (80 kVp/30 mA), LD A (120 kVp/20 mA), LD B (100 kVp/30 mA), LD C (120 kVp/30 mA), and CCT (120 kVp/automatic mA). Four chest radiologists analyzed a selected image from each protocol and registered in diagrams the nodules they detected. Kruskal-Wallis and McNemar's tests were performed to determine the difference in nodule detection. Equivalent doses were estimated by placing thermoluminescent dosimeters on the surface and inside the phantom. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in lung nodules' detection when comparing ULD and LD protocols (p=0.208 to p=1.000), but there was a significant difference when comparing each one of those against CCT (p < 0.001). The detection rate of nodules with CT attenuation values lower than -600 HU was also different when comparing all protocols against CCT (p < 0.001 to p=0.007). There was at least moderate agreement between observers in all protocols (κ-value >0.41). Equivalent dose values ranged from 0.5 to 9 mSv. CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in simulated lung nodules' detection when comparing ULD and LD protocols, but both differ from CCT, especially when considering lower-attenuating nodules.
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Timothy R Church; Richard M Fagerstrom; Barbara Galen; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Jonathan Goldin; John K Gohagan; Bruce Hillman; Carl Jaffe; Barnett S Kramer; David Lynch; Pamela M Marcus; Mitchell Schnall; Daniel C Sullivan; Dorothy Sullivan; Carl J Zylak Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Adrian Huber; Julia Landau; Lukas Ebner; Yanik Bütikofer; Lars Leidolt; Barbara Brela; Michelle May; Johannes Heverhagen; Andreas Christe Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Joseph K Leader; Thomas E Warfel; Carl R Fuhrman; Sara K Golla; Joel L Weissfeld; Ricardo S Avila; Wesly D Turner; Bin Zheng Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 3.959