nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.07.2015 | Computed Tomography

Sub-milliSievert (sub-mSv) CT colonography: a prospective comparison of image quality and polyp conspicuity at reduced-dose versus standard-dose imaging

verfasst von: Meghan G. Lubner, B. Dustin Pooler, Douglas R. Kitchin, Jie Tang, Ke Li, David H. Kim, Alejandro Munoz del Rio, Guang-Hong Chen, Perry J. Pickhardt

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 7/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

To prospectively compare reduced-dose (RD) CT colonography (CTC) with standard-dose (SD) imaging using several reconstruction algorithms.

Methods

Following SD supine CTC, 40 patients (mean age, 57.3 years; 17 M/23 F; mean BMI, 27.2) underwent an additional RD supine examination (targeted dose reduction, 70–90 %). DLP, CTDI_vol, effective dose, and SSDE were compared. Several reconstruction algorithms were applied to RD series. SD-FBP served as reference standard. Objective image noise, subjective image quality and polyp conspicuity were assessed.

Results

Mean CTDI_vol and effective dose for RD series was 0.89 mGy (median 0.65) and 0.6 mSv (median 0.44), compared with 3.8 mGy (median 3.1) and 2.8 mSv (median 2.3) for SD series, respectively. Mean dose reduction was 78 %. Mean image noise was significantly reduced on RD-PICCS (24.3 ± 19HU) and RD-MBIR (19 ± 18HU) compared with RD-FBP (90 ± 33), RD-ASIR (72 ± 27) and SD-FBP (47 ± 14 HU). 2D image quality score was higher with RD-PICCS, RD-MBIR, and SD-FBP (2.7 ± 0.4/2.8 ± 0.4/2.9 ± 0.6) compared with RD-FBP (1.5 ± 0.4) and RD-ASIR (1.8 ± 0.44). A similar trend was seen with 3D image quality scores. Polyp conspicuity scores were similar between SD-FBP/RD-PICCS/RD-MBIR (3.5 ± 0.6/3.2 ± 0.8/3.3 ± 0.6).

Conclusion

Sub-milliSievert CTC performed with iterative reconstruction techniques demonstrate decreased image quality compared to SD, but improved image quality compared to RD images reconstructed with FBP.

Key points

• CT colonography dose can be substantially lowered using advanced iterative reconstruction techniques.

• Iterative reconstruction techniques (MBIR/PICCS) reduce image noise and improve image quality.

• The PICCS/MBIR-reconstructed, reduced-dose series shows decreased 2D/3D image quality compared to the standard-dose series.

• Polyp conspicuity was similar on standard-dose images compared to reduced-dose images reconstructed with MBIR/PICCS.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A (2012) Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 62:10–29PubMedCrossRef

Society AC (2011) Colorectal cancer facts and figures 2011–2013.

Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I et al (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349:2191–2200PubMedCrossRef

Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY et al (2008) Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med 359:1207–1217PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Graser A, Stieber P, Nagel D et al (2009) Comparison of CT colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population. Gut 58:241–248PubMedCrossRef

Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography–an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284PubMedCrossRef

Boellaard TN, Venema HW, Streekstra GJ, Stoker J (2012) Effective radiation dose in CT colonography: is there a downward trend? Acad Radiol 19:1127–1133PubMedCrossRef

Berrington de Gonzalez A, Kim KP, Knudsen AB et al (2011) Radiation-related cancer risks from CT colonography screening: a risk-benefit analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:816–823PubMedCrossRef

Brenner DJ, Georgsson MA (2005) Mass screening with CT colonography: should the radiation exposure be of concern? Gastroenterology 129:328–337PubMedCrossRef

10.

Chang KJ, Yee J (2013) Dose reduction methods for CT colonography. Abdom Imaging 38:224–232PubMedCrossRef

11.

Ginsburg M, Obara P, Wise L, Wroblewski K, Vannier MW, Dachman AH (2013) BMI-based radiation dose reduction in CT colonography. Acad Radiol 20:486–492PubMedCrossRef

12.

Graser A, Wintersperger BJ, Suess C, Reiser MF, Becker CR (2006) Dose reduction and image quality in MDCT colonography using tube current modulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:695–701PubMedCrossRef

13.

Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, Mangiapane F, Piacentini F, Passariello R (2003) Feasibility of ultra-low-dose multislice CT colonography for the detection of colorectal lesions: preliminary experience. Eur Radiol 13:1297–1302PubMed

14.

Fisichella VA, Bath M, Allansdotter Johnsson A et al (2010) Evaluation of image quality and lesion perception by human readers on 3D CT colonography: comparison of standard and low radiation dose. Eur Radiol 20:630–639PubMedCrossRef

15.

van Gelder RE, Venema HW, Florie J et al (2004) CT colonography: feasibility of substantial dose reduction–comparison of medium to very low doses in identical patients. Radiology 232:611–620PubMedCrossRef

16.

Chang KJ, Caovan DB, Grand DJ, Huda W, Mayo-Smith WW (2013) Reducing radiation dose at CT colonography: decreasing tube voltage to 100 kVp. Radiology 266:791–800PubMedCrossRef

17.

Gryspeerdt SS, Salazar P, Lefere P (2014) Image quality improvement in submillisievert computed tomographic colonography using a fast 3-dimensional noise reduction method. J Comput Assist Tomogr. doi:10.1097/rct.0000000000000092 PubMed

18.

Lambert L, Danes J, Jahoda J, Masek M, Lisy J, Ourednicek P (2014) Submilisievert ultralow-dose CT colonography using iterative reconstruction technique: a feasibility study. Acta Radiol. doi:10.1177/0284185114533683 PubMed

19.

Flicek KT, Hara AK, Silva AC, Wu Q, Peter MB, Johnson CD (2010) Reducing the radiation dose for CT colonography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: A pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:126–131PubMedCrossRef

20.

Yoon MA, Kim SH, Lee JM et al (2012) Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and Veo: assessment of image quality and diagnostic performance in CT colonography at various radiation doses. J Comput Assist Tomogr 36:596–601PubMedCrossRef

21.

Lubner MG, Pickhardt PJ, Tang J, Chen GH (2011) Reduced image noise at low-dose multidetector CT of the abdomen with prior image constrained compressed sensing algorithm. Radiology 260:248–256PubMedCrossRef

22.

McCollough C, Cody D, Edyvean S et al. (2008) The measurement, reporting and mangement of radiation dose in CT. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. AAPM, College Park, MD

23.

Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA (2010) Multisection CT protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology 257:158–166PubMedCrossRef

24.

Boone JM, Strauss KJ, Cody DD, McCullough CH, McNitt-Gray MF, Toth TL (2011) Size-Specific Dose Estimates (SSDE) in Pediatric and Adult Body CT ExaminationsAmerican Association of Physicists in Medicine. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park MD

25.

Bankier AA, Kressel HY (2012) Through the Looking Glass revisited: the need for more meaning and less drama in the reporting of dose and dose reduction in CT. Radiology 265:4–8PubMedCrossRef

26.

Lubner MG PP, Kim DH, Tang J, Munoz del Rio A, Chen GH (2014) Prospective Evaluation of Prior Image Constrained Compressed Sensing (PICCS) Algorithm in Abdominal CT: A comparison of reduced dose with standard dose imaging. Abdom Imaging In Press

27.

Sagara Y, Hara AK, Pavlicek W, Silva AC, Paden RG, Wu Q (2010) Abdominal CT: comparison of low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:713–719PubMedCrossRef

28.

Prakash P, Kalra MK, Kambadakone AK et al (2010) Reducing abdominal CT radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Invest Radiol 45:202–210PubMedCrossRef

29.

Tang J T-LP, Chen G.-H. (2011) Proc. SPIE 7961, Medical Imaging. Physics of Medical Imaging. 10.1117/12.878200

30.

Chen GH, Tang J, Leng S (2008) Prior image constrained compressed sensing (PICCS): a method to accurately reconstruct dynamic CT images from highly undersampled projection data sets. Med Phys 35:660–663PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

31.

Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New YorkCrossRef

32.

Bland JM, Altman DG (2007) Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J Biopharm Stat 17:571–582PubMedCrossRef

33.

Team RDC (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org

34.

Pickhardt PJ, Lee AD, Taylor AJ et al (2007) Primary 2D versus primary 3D polyp detection at screening CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:1451–1456PubMedCrossRef

35.

Pickhardt PJ, Lubner MG, Kim DH et al (2012) Abdominal CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:1266–1274PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Titel: Sub-milliSievert (sub-mSv) CT colonography: a prospective comparison of image quality and polyp conspicuity at reduced-dose versus standard-dose imaging
verfasst von: Meghan G. Lubner
B. Dustin Pooler
Douglas R. Kitchin
Jie Tang
Ke Li
David H. Kim
Alejandro Munoz del Rio
Guang-Hong Chen
Perry J. Pickhardt
Publikationsdatum: 01.07.2015
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 7/2015
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3603-9

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

23.04.2024 | Pankreaskarzinom | Nachrichten

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Sub-milliSievert (sub-mSv) CT colonography: a prospective comparison of image quality and polyp conspicuity at reduced-dose versus standard-dose imaging

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key points

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Update Radiologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key points

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2015

Thyroid doses and risk to paediatric patients undergoing neck CT examinations

Very low mammographic breast density predicts poorer outcome in patients with invasive breast cancer

Phosphatidylcholine contributes to in vivo 31P MRS signal from the human liver

MR neurography of ulnar nerve entrapment at the cubital tunnel: a diffusion tensor imaging study

Biased visualization of hypoperfused tissue by computed tomography due to short imaging duration: improved classification by image down-sampling and vascular models

Diagnostic performance of CT and MRI in distinguishing intraductal papillary neoplasm of the bile duct from cholangiocarcinoma with intraductal papillary growth

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Update Radiologie