Head and neck single- and dual-energy CT: differences in radiation dose and image quality of 2nd and 3rd generation dual-source CT

被引:6
作者
Lenga, Lukas [1 ]
Lange, Marvin [1 ]
Martin, Simon S. [1 ]
Albrecht, Moritz H. [1 ]
Booz, Christian [1 ]
Yel, Ibrahim [1 ]
Arendt, Christophe T. [1 ]
Vogl, Thomas J. [1 ]
Leithner, Doris [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Frankfurt, Dept Diagnost & Intervent Radiol, Frankfurt, Germany
[2] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, Dept Radiol, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10021 USA
[3] Med Univ Vienna, Dept Biomed Imaging & Image Guided Therapy, Vienna, Austria
关键词
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION; COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; TUBE VOLTAGE; ANGIOGRAPHY; CHILDREN;
D O I
10.1259/bjr.20210069
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Objectives: To compare radiation dose and image quality of single-energy (SECT) and dual-energy (DECT) head and neck CT examinations performed with second-and third-generation dual-source CT (DSCT) in matched patient cohorts. Methods: 200 patients (mean age 55.1 +/- 16.9 years) who underwent venous phase head and neck CT with a vendor-preset protocol were retrospectively divided into four equal groups (n = 50) matched by gender and BMI: second (Group A, SECT, 100-kV; Group B, DECT, 80/Sn140-kV), and third-generation DSCT (Group C, SECT, 100-kV; Group D, DECT, 90/Sn150-kV). Assessment of radiation dose was performed for an average scan length of 27 cm. Contrast-to-noise ratio measurements and dose-independent figure-of-merit calculations of the submandibular gland, thyroid, internal jugular vein, and common carotid artery were analyzed quantitatively. Qualitative image parameters were evaluated regarding overall image quality, artifacts and reader confidence using 5-point Likert scales. Results: Effective radiation dose (ED) was not significantly different between SECT and DECT acquisition for each scanner generation (p = 0.10). Significantly lower effective radiation dose (p < 0.01) values were observed for third-generation DSCT groups C (1.1 +/- 0.2 mSv) and D (1.0 +/- 0.3 mSv) compared to second-generation DSCT groups A (1.8 +/- 0.1 mSv) and B (1.6 +/- 0.2 mSv). Figure-of-merit/contrast-to-noise ratio analysis revealed superior results for third-generation DECT Group D compared to all other groups. Qualitative image parameters showed non-significant differences between all groups (p > 0.06). Conclusion: Contrast-enhanced head and neck DECT can be performed with second- and third-generation DSCT systems without radiation penalty or impaired image quality compared with SECT, while third-generation DSCT is the most dose efficient acquisition method. Advances in knowledge: Differences in radiation dose between SECT and DECT of the dose-vulnerable head and neck region using DSCT systems have not been evaluated so far. Therefore, this study directly compares radiation dose and image quality of standard SECT and DECT protocols of second- and third-generation DSCT platforms.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]   Virtual mono-energetic images and iterative image reconstruction: abdominal vessel imaging in the era of spectral detector CT [J].
Al-Baldawi, Y. ;
Hokamp, N. Grosse ;
Haneder, S. ;
Steinhauser, S. ;
Puesken, M. ;
Persigehl, T. ;
Maintz, D. ;
Wybranski, C. .
CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2020, 75 (08) :641.e9-641.e18
[2]   Cerebral computed tomographic angiography using third-generation reconstruction algorithm provides improved image quality with lower contrast and radiation dose [J].
Bathla, Girish ;
Priya, Sarv ;
Samaniego, Edgar ;
Deo, Simmi K. ;
Fain, Nicholas H. ;
Soni, Neetu ;
Ward, Caitlin ;
Derdeyn, Colin P. .
NEURORADIOLOGY, 2020, 62 (08) :965-970
[3]  
Cicchetti D. V., 1994, Psychological Assessment, V6, P284, DOI [DOI 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284, 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284]
[4]   Second-Generation Dual-Energy Computed Tomography of the Abdomen: Radiation Dose Comparison With 64-and 128-Row Single-Energy Acquisition [J].
De Cecco, Carlo Nicola ;
Darnell, Anna ;
Macias, Napoleon ;
Ramon Ayuso, Juan ;
Rodriguez, Sonia ;
Rimola, Jordi ;
Pages, Mario ;
Garcia-Criado, Angeles ;
Rengo, Marco ;
Muscogiuri, Giuseppe ;
Laghi, Andrea ;
Ayuso, Carmen .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2013, 37 (04) :543-546
[5]   Multisection CT Protocols: Sex- and Age-specific Conversion Factors Used to Determine Effective Dose from Dose-Length Product [J].
Deak, Paul D. ;
Smal, Yulia ;
Kalender, Willi A. .
RADIOLOGY, 2010, 257 (01) :158-166
[6]   First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system [J].
Flohr, TG ;
McCollough, CH ;
Bruder, H ;
Petersilka, M ;
Gruber, K ;
Süss, C ;
Grasruck, M ;
Stierstorfer, K ;
Krauss, B ;
Raupach, R ;
Primak, AN ;
Küttner, A ;
Achenbach, S ;
Becker, C ;
Kopp, A ;
Ohnesorge, BM .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2006, 16 (02) :256-268
[7]   Ultralow-Dose Chest Computed Tomography for Pulmonary Nodule Detection First Performance Evaluation of Single Energy Scanning With Spectral Shaping [J].
Gordic, Sonja ;
Morsbach, Fabian ;
Schmidt, Bernhard ;
Allmendinger, Thomas ;
Flohr, Thomas ;
Husarik, Daniela ;
Baumueller, Stephan ;
Raupach, Rainer ;
Stolzmann, Paul ;
Leschka, Sebastian ;
Frauenfelder, Thomas ;
Alkadhi, Hatem .
INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2014, 49 (07) :465-473
[8]   Dual-Energy CT in Patients Suspected of Having Renal Masses: Can Virtual Nonenhanced Images Replace True Nonenhanced Images? [J].
Graser, Anno ;
Johnson, Thorsten R. C. ;
Hecht, Elizabeth M. ;
Becker, Christoph R. ;
Leidecker, Christianne ;
Staehler, Michael ;
Stief, Christian G. ;
Hildebrandt, Henriette ;
Godoy, Myrna C. B. ;
Finn, Myra E. ;
Stepansky, Flora ;
Reiser, Maximilian F. ;
Macari, Michael .
RADIOLOGY, 2009, 252 (02) :433-440
[9]   Appropriate Patient Selection at Abdominal Dual-Energy CT Using 80 kV: Relationship between Patient Size, Image Noise, and Image Quality [J].
Guimaraes, Luis S. ;
Fletcher, Joel G. ;
Harmsen, William S. ;
Yu, Lifeng ;
Siddiki, Hassan ;
Melton, Zachary ;
Huprich, James E. ;
Hough, David ;
Hartman, Robert ;
McCollough, Cynthia H. .
RADIOLOGY, 2010, 257 (03) :732-742
[10]   Ionizing radiation sensitivity of the ocular lens and its dose rate dependence [J].
Hamada, Nobuyuki .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION BIOLOGY, 2017, 93 (10) :1024-1034