Gareth R Iball1, Michael Darby2, Rhian Gabe3, Philip A J Crosbie4, Matthew E J Callister5. 1. Department of Medical Physics & Engineering, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Radiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom. 3. Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. 4. Division of Infection, Immunity & Respiratory Medicine, University of Manchester, England, United Kingdom. 5. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop a CT scanning protocol for lung cancer screening which achieved low radiation dose and a high level of objectively assessed image quality. METHODS: An anthropomorphic chest phantom and a commercially available lung screening image quality phantom were scanned on a series of scan protocols from a previous UK lung screening pilot and on an alternative protocol. The chest phantom scans were used to assess the CT dose metrics on community-based mobile CT scanners and comparisons were made with published recommended doses. Scans of the image quality phantom were objectively assessed against the RSNA Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) recommendations. Protocol adjustments were made to ensure that the recommended dose and image quality levels were both achieved. RESULTS: The alternative scan protocol yielded doses up to 72% lower than on the previously used protocols with a CTDIvol of 0.6mGy for the 55 kg equivalent phantom and 1.3mGy with an additional 6 cm of tissue equivalent material in place. Scans on the existing protocols failed on two of the QIBA image quality metrics (edge enhancement and 3D resolution aspect ratio). Following adjustments to the reconstruction parameters of the resulting image quality met all six QIBA recommendations. Radiologist review of phantom images with this scan protocol deemed them suitable for a lung screening trial. CONCLUSIONS: Scan protocols yielding low radiation doses and high levels of objectively assessed image quality which meet published criteria can be established through the use of specific anthropomorphic and image quality phantoms, and are deliverable in community-based lung cancer screening. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Development of a standard methodology for establishing CT lung screening scanning protocolsUse of QIBA recommendations as objective image quality metricsStandardised lung phantoms are essential tools for setting up lung screening protocols.
OBJECTIVES: To develop a CT scanning protocol for lung cancer screening which achieved low radiation dose and a high level of objectively assessed image quality. METHODS: An anthropomorphic chest phantom and a commercially available lung screening image quality phantom were scanned on a series of scan protocols from a previous UK lung screening pilot and on an alternative protocol. The chest phantom scans were used to assess the CT dose metrics on community-based mobile CT scanners and comparisons were made with published recommended doses. Scans of the image quality phantom were objectively assessed against the RSNA Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) recommendations. Protocol adjustments were made to ensure that the recommended dose and image quality levels were both achieved. RESULTS: The alternative scan protocol yielded doses up to 72% lower than on the previously used protocols with a CTDIvol of 0.6mGy for the 55 kg equivalent phantom and 1.3mGy with an additional 6 cm of tissue equivalent material in place. Scans on the existing protocols failed on two of the QIBA image quality metrics (edge enhancement and 3D resolution aspect ratio). Following adjustments to the reconstruction parameters of the resulting image quality met all six QIBA recommendations. Radiologist review of phantom images with this scan protocol deemed them suitable for a lung screening trial. CONCLUSIONS: Scan protocols yielding low radiation doses and high levels of objectively assessed image quality which meet published criteria can be established through the use of specific anthropomorphic and image quality phantoms, and are deliverable in community-based lung cancer screening. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Development of a standard methodology for establishing CT lung screening scanning protocolsUse of QIBA recommendations as objective image quality metricsStandardised lung phantoms are essential tools for setting up lung screening protocols.
Authors: M E J Callister; D R Baldwin; A R Akram; S Barnard; P Cane; J Draffan; K Franks; F Gleeson; R Graham; P Malhotra; M Prokop; K Rodger; M Subesinghe; D Waller; I Woolhouse Journal: Thorax Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Ella A Kazerooni; John H M Austin; William C Black; Debra S Dyer; Todd R Hazelton; Ann N Leung; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Reginald F Munden; Sudhakar Pipavath Journal: J Thorac Imaging Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 3.000
Authors: Phil A Crosbie; Haval Balata; Matthew Evison; Melanie Atack; Val Bayliss-Brideaux; Denis Colligan; Rebecca Duerden; Josephine Eaglesfield; Timothy Edwards; Peter Elton; Julie Foster; Melanie Greaves; Graham Hayler; Coral Higgins; John Howells; Klaus Irion; Devinda Karunaratne; Jodie Kelly; Zoe King; Sarah Manson; Stuart Mellor; Donna Miller; Amanda Myerscough; Tom Newton; Michelle O'Leary; Rachel Pearson; Julie Pickford; Richard Sawyer; Nick J Screaton; Anna Sharman; Maggi Simmons; Elaine Smith; Ben Taylor; Sarah Taylor; Anna Walsham; Angela Watts; James Whittaker; Laura Yarnell; Anthony Threlfall; Phil V Barber; Janet Tonge; Richard Booton Journal: Thorax Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Harry J de Koning; Carlijn M van der Aalst; Pim A de Jong; Ernst T Scholten; Kristiaan Nackaerts; Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Jan-Willem J Lammers; Carla Weenink; Uraujh Yousaf-Khan; Nanda Horeweg; Susan van 't Westeinde; Mathias Prokop; Willem P Mali; Firdaus A A Mohamed Hoesein; Peter M A van Ooijen; Joachim G J V Aerts; Michael A den Bakker; Erik Thunnissen; Johny Verschakelen; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Joan E Walter; Kevin Ten Haaf; Harry J M Groen; Matthijs Oudkerk Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John K Field; Stephen W Duffy; David R Baldwin; Kate E Brain; Anand Devaraj; Tim Eisen; Beverley A Green; John A Holemans; Terry Kavanagh; Keith M Kerr; Martin Ledson; Kate J Lifford; Fiona E McRonald; Arjun Nair; Richard D Page; Mahesh Kb Parmar; Robert C Rintoul; Nicholas Screaton; Nicholas J Wald; David Weller; David K Whynes; Paula R Williamson; Ghasem Yadegarfar; David M Hansell Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Andreas Christe; Zsolt Szucs-Farkas; Adrian Huber; Philipp Steiger; Lars Leidolt; Justus E Roos; Johannes Heverhagen; Lukas Ebner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kelsey B Mathieu; Hua Ai; Patricia S Fox; Myrna Cobos Barco Godoy; Reginald F Munden; Patricia M de Groot; Tinsu Pan Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 2.102