Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Radiology 5/2017

05.09.2016 | Computed Tomography

Prospective Evaluation of Reduced Dose Computed Tomography for the Detection of Low-Contrast Liver Lesions: Direct Comparison with Concurrent Standard Dose Imaging

verfasst von: B. Dustin Pooler, Meghan G. Lubner, David H. Kim, Oliver T. Chen, Ke Li, Guang-Hong Chen, Perry J. Pickhardt

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 5/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To prospectively compare the diagnostic performance of reduced-dose (RD) contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) with standard-dose (SD) CECT for detection of low-contrast liver lesions.

Methods

Seventy adults with non-liver primary malignancies underwent abdominal SD-CECT immediately followed by RD-CECT, aggressively targeted at 60-70 % dose reduction. SD series were reconstructed using FBP. RD series were reconstructed with FBP, ASIR, and MBIR (Veo). Three readers—blinded to clinical history and comparison studies—reviewed all series, identifying liver lesions ≥4 mm. Non-blinded review by two experienced abdominal radiologists—assessing SD against available clinical and radiologic information—established the reference standard.

Results

RD-CECT mean effective dose was 2.01 ± 1.36 mSv (median, 1.71), a 64.1 ± 8.8 % reduction. Pooled per-patient performance data were (sensitivity/specificity/PPV/NPV/accuracy) 0.91/0.78/0.60/0.96/0.81 for SD-FBP compared with RD-FBP 0.79/0.75/0.54/0.91/0.76; RD-ASIR 0.84/0.75/0.56/0.93/0.78; and RD-MBIR 0.84/0.68/0.49/0.92/0.72. ROC AUC values were 0.896/0.834/0.858/0.854 for SD-FBP/RD-FBP/RD-ASIR/RD-MBIR, respectively. RD-FBP (P = 0.002) and RD-MBIR (P = 0.032) AUCs were significantly lower than those of SD-FBP; RD-ASIR was not (P = 0.052). Reader confidence was lower for all RD series (P < 0.001) compared with SD-FBP, especially when calling patients entirely negative.

Conclusions

Aggressive CT dose reduction resulted in inferior diagnostic performance and reader confidence for detection of low-contrast liver lesions compared to SD. Relative to RD-ASIR, RD-FBP showed decreased sensitivity and RD-MBIR showed decreased specificity.

Key Points

Reduced-dose CECT demonstrates inferior diagnostic performance for detecting low-contrast liver lesions.
Reader confidence is lower with reduced-dose CECT compared to standard-dose CECT.
Overly aggressive dose reduction may result in misdiagnosis, regardless of reconstruction algorithm.
Careful consideration of perceived risks versus benefits of dose reduction is crucial.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Eisenhauer EA et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247CrossRefPubMed Eisenhauer EA et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Levin DC, Rao VM, Parker L (2012) The recent downturn in utilization of CT: the start of a new trend? J Am Coll Radiol 9:795–798CrossRefPubMed Levin DC, Rao VM, Parker L (2012) The recent downturn in utilization of CT: the start of a new trend? J Am Coll Radiol 9:795–798CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Moreno CC et al (2016) Changing abdominal imaging utilization patterns: perspectives from medicare beneficiaries over two decades. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016 Aug;13(8):894–903 Moreno CC et al (2016) Changing abdominal imaging utilization patterns: perspectives from medicare beneficiaries over two decades. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016 Aug;13(8):894–903
4.
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Patino M et al (2015) Iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominopelvic CT: technical concepts and clinical implementation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:W19–W31CrossRefPubMed Patino M et al (2015) Iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominopelvic CT: technical concepts and clinical implementation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:W19–W31CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Flicek KT et al (2010) Reducing the radiation dose for CT colonography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: a pilot study. Am J Roentgenol 195:126–131CrossRef Flicek KT et al (2010) Reducing the radiation dose for CT colonography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: a pilot study. Am J Roentgenol 195:126–131CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Gervaise A et al (2012) CT image quality improvement using adaptive iterative dose reduction with wide-volume acquisition on 320-detector CT. Eur Radiol 22:295–301CrossRefPubMed Gervaise A et al (2012) CT image quality improvement using adaptive iterative dose reduction with wide-volume acquisition on 320-detector CT. Eur Radiol 22:295–301CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee SJ et al (2011) A prospective comparison of standard-dose ct enterography and 50% reduced-dose ct enterography with and without noise reduction for evaluating Crohn disease. Am J Roentgenol 197:50–57CrossRef Lee SJ et al (2011) A prospective comparison of standard-dose ct enterography and 50% reduced-dose ct enterography with and without noise reduction for evaluating Crohn disease. Am J Roentgenol 197:50–57CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Sagara Y et al (2010) Abdominal CT: Comparison of low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients. Am J Roentgenol 195:713–719CrossRef Sagara Y et al (2010) Abdominal CT: Comparison of low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients. Am J Roentgenol 195:713–719CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Singh S et al (2010) Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 257:373–383CrossRefPubMed Singh S et al (2010) Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 257:373–383CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Pickhardt PJ et al (2012) Abdominal CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging. Am J Roentgenol 199:1266–1274CrossRef Pickhardt PJ et al (2012) Abdominal CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging. Am J Roentgenol 199:1266–1274CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Volders D et al (2013) Model-based iterative reconstruction and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominal CT: comparison of image quality in the detection of colorectal liver metastases. Radiology 269:468–473CrossRef Volders D et al (2013) Model-based iterative reconstruction and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominal CT: comparison of image quality in the detection of colorectal liver metastases. Radiology 269:468–473CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Chang KJ, Yee J (2013) Dose reduction methods for CT colonography. Abdom Imaging 38:224–232CrossRefPubMed Chang KJ, Yee J (2013) Dose reduction methods for CT colonography. Abdom Imaging 38:224–232CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Lubner MG et al (2015) Sub-milliSievert (sub-mSv) CT colonography: a prospective comparison of image quality and polyp conspicuity at reduced-dose versus standard-dose imaging. Eur Radiol 25:2089–2102CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lubner MG et al (2015) Sub-milliSievert (sub-mSv) CT colonography: a prospective comparison of image quality and polyp conspicuity at reduced-dose versus standard-dose imaging. Eur Radiol 25:2089–2102CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Pooler BD et al (2014) Prospective trial of the detection of urolithiasis on ultralow dose (sub mSv) noncontrast computerized tomography: direct comparison against routine low dose reference standard. J Urol 192:1433–1439CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pooler BD et al (2014) Prospective trial of the detection of urolithiasis on ultralow dose (sub mSv) noncontrast computerized tomography: direct comparison against routine low dose reference standard. J Urol 192:1433–1439CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Zilberman DE et al (2011) Low dose computerized tomography for detection of urolithiasis-its effectiveness in the setting of the urology clinic. J Urol 185:910–914CrossRefPubMed Zilberman DE et al (2011) Low dose computerized tomography for detection of urolithiasis-its effectiveness in the setting of the urology clinic. J Urol 185:910–914CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Laqmani A et al (2016) Reduced-dose abdominopelvic CT using hybrid iterative reconstruction in suspected left-sided colonic diverticulitis. Eur Radiol 26:216–224CrossRefPubMed Laqmani A et al (2016) Reduced-dose abdominopelvic CT using hybrid iterative reconstruction in suspected left-sided colonic diverticulitis. Eur Radiol 26:216–224CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Zacharia TT et al (2006) CT of colon cancer metastases to the liver using modified RECIST criteria: determining the ideal number of target lesions to measure. Am J Roentgenol 186:1067–1070CrossRef Zacharia TT et al (2006) CT of colon cancer metastases to the liver using modified RECIST criteria: determining the ideal number of target lesions to measure. Am J Roentgenol 186:1067–1070CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Dobeli KL et al (2013) Noise-reducing algorithms do not necessarily provide superior dose optimisation for hepatic lesion detection with multidetector CT. British Journal of Radiology, 2013. 86(1023):20120500 Dobeli KL et al (2013) Noise-reducing algorithms do not necessarily provide superior dose optimisation for hepatic lesion detection with multidetector CT. British Journal of Radiology, 2013. 86(1023):20120500
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Schindera ST et al (2013) Iterative reconstruction algorithm for CT: can radiation dose be decreased while low-contrast detectability is preserved? Radiology 269:510–517CrossRef Schindera ST et al (2013) Iterative reconstruction algorithm for CT: can radiation dose be decreased while low-contrast detectability is preserved? Radiology 269:510–517CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Baker ME et al (2012) Contrast-to-noise ratio and low-contrast object resolution on full- and low-dose MDCT: SAFIRE versus filtered back projection in a low-contrast object phantom and in the liver. Am J Roentgenol 199:8–18CrossRef Baker ME et al (2012) Contrast-to-noise ratio and low-contrast object resolution on full- and low-dose MDCT: SAFIRE versus filtered back projection in a low-contrast object phantom and in the liver. Am J Roentgenol 199:8–18CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Fletcher JG et al (2015) Observer performance in the detection and classification of malignant hepatic nodules and masses with CT image-space denoising and iterative reconstruction. Radiology 276:465–478CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Fletcher JG et al (2015) Observer performance in the detection and classification of malignant hepatic nodules and masses with CT image-space denoising and iterative reconstruction. Radiology 276:465–478CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Deak Z et al (2013) Filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and a model-based iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT: an experimental clinical study. Radiology 266:197–206CrossRefPubMed Deak Z et al (2013) Filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and a model-based iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT: an experimental clinical study. Radiology 266:197–206CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Martinsen ACT et al (2012) Iterative reconstruction reduces abdominal CT dose. Eur J Radiol 81:1483–1487CrossRefPubMed Martinsen ACT et al (2012) Iterative reconstruction reduces abdominal CT dose. Eur J Radiol 81:1483–1487CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat AAPM (2008) The measurement, reporting, and management of radiation dose in CT. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park AAPM (2008) The measurement, reporting, and management of radiation dose in CT. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park
26.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 257:158–166CrossRefPubMed 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 257:158–166CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Prakash P et al (2010) Reducing abdominal CT radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Invest Radiol 45:202–210CrossRefPubMed Prakash P et al (2010) Reducing abdominal CT radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Invest Radiol 45:202–210CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143:29–36CrossRefPubMed Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143:29–36CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat McNeil BJ, Hanley JA (1984) Statistical approaches to the analysis of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Med Decis Mak 4:137–150CrossRef McNeil BJ, Hanley JA (1984) Statistical approaches to the analysis of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Med Decis Mak 4:137–150CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Prospective Evaluation of Reduced Dose Computed Tomography for the Detection of Low-Contrast Liver Lesions: Direct Comparison with Concurrent Standard Dose Imaging
verfasst von
B. Dustin Pooler
Meghan G. Lubner
David H. Kim
Oliver T. Chen
Ke Li
Guang-Hong Chen
Perry J. Pickhardt
Publikationsdatum
05.09.2016
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 5/2017
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4571-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2017

European Radiology 5/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Update Radiologie

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