nach oben

Erschienen in:

10.05.2016 | Computed Tomography

Single- and dual-energy CT of the abdomen: comparison of radiation dose and image quality of 2nd and 3rd generation dual-source CT

verfasst von: Julian L. Wichmann, Andrew D. Hardie, U. Joseph Schoepf, Lloyd M. Felmly, Jonathan D. Perry, Akos Varga-Szemes, Stefanie Mangold, Damiano Caruso, Christian Canstein, Thomas J. Vogl, Carlo N. De Cecco

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 2/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To compare single-energy (SECT) and dual-energy (DECT) abdominal CT examinations in matched patient cohorts regarding differences in radiation dose and image quality performed with second- and third-generation dual-source CT (DSCT).

Methods

We retrospectively analysed 200 patients (100 male, 100 female; mean age 61.2 ± 13.5 years, mean body mass index 27.5 ± 3.8 kg/m²) equally divided into four groups matched by gender and body mass index, who had undergone portal venous phase abdominal CT with second-generation (group A, 120-kV-SECT; group B, 80/140-kV-DECT) and third-generation DSCT (group C, 100-kV-SECT; group D, 90/150-kV-DECT). The radiation dose was normalised for 40-cm scan length. Dose-independent figure-of-merit (FOM) contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) were calculated for various organs and vessels. Subjective overall image quality and reader confidence were assessed.

Results

The effective normalised radiation dose was significantly lower (P < 0.001) in groups C (6.2 ± 2.0 mSv) and D (5.3 ± 1.9 mSv, P = 0.103) compared to groups A (8.8 ± 2.3 mSv) and B (9.7 ± 2.4 mSv, P = 0.102). Dose-independent FOM-CNR peaked for liver, kidney, and portal vein measurements (all P ≤ 0.0285) in group D. Subjective image quality and reader confidence were consistently rated as excellent in all groups (all ≥1.53 out of 5).

Conclusions

With both DSCT generations, abdominal DECT can be routinely performed without radiation dose penalty compared to SECT, while third-generation DSCT shows improved dose efficiency.

Key Points

• Dual-source CT (DSCT) allows for single- and dual-energy image acquisition.

• Dual-energy acquisition does not increase the radiation dose in abdominal DSCT.

• Third-generation DSCT shows improved dose efficiency compared to second-generation DSCT.

• Dose-independent figure-of-merit image contrast was highest with third-generation dual-energy DSCT.

• Third-generation DSCT shows improved dose efficiency for SECT and DECT.

Graser A, Johnson TR, Chandarana H, Macari M (2009) Dual energy CT: preliminary observations and potential clinical applications in the abdomen. Eur Radiol 19:13–23CrossRefPubMed

Silva AC, Morse BG, Hara AK, Paden RG, Hongo N, Pavlicek W (2011) Dual-energy (spectral) CT: applications in abdominal imaging. Radiographics 31:1031–1046, discussion 1047-1050CrossRefPubMed

Heye T, Nelson RC, Ho LM, Marin D, Boll DT (2012) Dual-energy CT applications in the abdomen. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:S64–70CrossRefPubMed

Marin D, Boll DT, Mileto A, Nelson RC (2014) State of the art: dual-energy CT of the abdomen. Radiology 271:327–342CrossRefPubMed

Morgan DE (2014) Dual-energy CT of the abdomen. Abdom Imaging 39:108–134CrossRefPubMed

Johnson TR, Krauss B, Sedlmair M et al (2007) Material differentiation by dual energy CT: initial experience. Eur Radiol 17:1510–1517CrossRefPubMed

Joe E, Kim SH, Lee KB et al (2012) Feasibility and accuracy of dual-source dual-energy CT for noninvasive determination of hepatic iron accumulation. Radiology 262:126–135CrossRefPubMed

Luo XF, Xie XQ, Cheng S et al (2015) Dual-energy CT for patients suspected of having liver iron overload: can virtual iron content imaging accurately quantify liver iron content? Radiology 277:95–103CrossRefPubMed

Bauer RW, Schulz JR, Zedler B, Graf TG, Vogl TJ (2010) Compound analysis of gallstones using dual energy computed tomography—results in a phantom model. Eur J Radiol 75:e74–80CrossRefPubMed

10.

Graser A, Johnson TR, Bader M et al (2008) Dual energy CT characterization of urinary calculi: initial in vitro and clinical experience. Investig Radiol 43:112–119CrossRef

11.

Nattenmuller J, Hosch W, Nguyen TT et al (2015) Hypodense liver lesions in patients with hepatic steatosis: do we profit from dual-energy computed tomography? Eur Radiol 25:3567–3576CrossRefPubMed

12.

Mileto A, Sofue K, Marin D (2016) Imaging the renal lesion with dual-energy multidetector CT and multi-energy applications in clinical practice: what can it truly do for you? Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-4180-7 PubMed

13.

Mileto A, Nelson RC, Marin D, Roy Choudhury K, Ho LM (2015) Dual-energy multidetector CT for the characterization of incidental adrenal nodules: diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced material density analysis. Radiology 274:445–454CrossRefPubMed

14.

Wichmann JL, Booz C, Wesarg S et al (2014) Dual-energy CT-based phantomless in vivo three-dimensional bone mineral density assessment of the lumbar spine. Radiology 271:778–784CrossRefPubMed

15.

Meinel FG, Bischoff B, Zhang Q, Bamberg F, Reiser MF, Johnson TR (2012) Metal artifact reduction by dual-energy computed tomography using energetic extrapolation: a systematically optimized protocol. Investig Radiol 47:406–414CrossRef

16.

Schabel C, Bongers M, Sedlmair M et al (2014) Assessment of the hepatic veins in poor contrast conditions using dual energy CT: evaluation of a novel monoenergetic extrapolation software algorithm. Röfo 186:591–597PubMed

17.

Mileto A, Ramirez-Giraldo JC, Marin D et al (2014) Nonlinear image blending for dual-energy MDCT of the abdomen: can image quality be preserved if the contrast medium dose is reduced? AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:838–845CrossRefPubMed

18.

De Cecco CN, Darnell A, Macias N et al (2013) Second-generation dual-energy computed tomography of the abdomen: radiation dose comparison with 64- and 128-row single-energy acquisition. J Comput Assist Tomogr 37:543–546CrossRefPubMed

19.

Jepperson MA, Cernigliaro JG, el Ibrahim SH, Morin RL, Haley WE, Thiel DD (2015) In vivo comparison of radiation exposure of dual-energy CT versus low-dose CT versus standard CT for imaging urinary calculi. J Endourol 29:141–146CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

(2007) The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 37:1–332

21.

Christner JA, Kofler JM, McCollough CH (2010) Estimating effective dose for CT using dose-length product compared with using organ doses: consequences of adopting International Commission on Radiological Protection publication 103 or dual-energy scanning. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:881–889CrossRefPubMed

22.

Schindera ST, Nelson RC, Mukundan S Jr et al (2008) Hypervascular liver tumors: low tube voltage, high tube current multi-detector row CT for enhanced detection--phantom study. Radiology 246:125–132CrossRefPubMed

23.

Nakaura T, Awai K, Maruyama N et al (2011) Abdominal dynamic CT in patients with renal dysfunction: contrast agent dose reduction with low tube voltage and high tube current-time product settings at 256-detector row CT. Radiology 261:467–476CrossRefPubMed

24.

Guimaraes LS, Fletcher JG, Harmsen WS et al (2010) Appropriate patient selection at abdominal dual-energy CT using 80 kV: relationship between patient size, image noise, and image quality. Radiology 257:732–742CrossRefPubMed

25.

Primak AN, Giraldo JC, Eusemann CD et al (2010) Dual-source dual-energy CT with additional tin filtration: dose and image quality evaluation in phantoms and in vivo. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:1164–1174CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Purysko AS, Primak AN, Baker ME et al (2014) Comparison of radiation dose and image quality from single-energy and dual-energy CT examinations in the same patients screened for hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Radiol 69:e538–544CrossRefPubMed

27.

Winklehner A, Gordic S, Lauk E et al (2015) Automated attenuation-based tube voltage selection for body CTA: performance evaluation of 192-slice dual-source CT. Eur Radiol 25:2346–2353CrossRefPubMed

28.

Gordic S, Morsbach F, Schmidt B et al (2014) Ultralow-dose chest computed tomography for pulmonary nodule detection: first performance evaluation of single energy scanning with spectral shaping. Investig Radiol 49:465–473CrossRef

29.

Solomon J, Mileto A, Ramirez-Giraldo JC, Samei E (2015) Diagnostic performance of an advanced modeled iterative reconstruction algorithm for low-contrast detectability with a third-generation dual-source multidetector CT scanner: potential for radiation dose reduction in a multireader study. Radiology 275:735–745CrossRefPubMed

30.

Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R et al (2009) Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med 169:2078–2086CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Patient safety: radiation dose in X-ray and CT exams. Available via http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/?pg=sfty_xray#part3. Accessed 28 April 2015

32.

Mangold S, Thomas C, Fenchel M et al (2012) Virtual nonenhanced dual-energy CT urography with tin-filter technology: determinants of detection of urinary calculi in the renal collecting system. Radiology 264:119–125CrossRefPubMed

33.

De Cecco CN, Darnell A, Macias N et al (2013) Virtual unenhanced images of the abdomen with second-generation dual-source dual-energy computed tomography: image quality and liver lesion detection. Investig Radiol 48:1–9CrossRef

34.

Graser A, Johnson TR, Hecht EM et al (2009) Dual-energy CT in patients suspected of having renal masses: can virtual nonenhanced images replace true nonenhanced images? Radiology 252:433–440CrossRefPubMed

35.

Krauss B, Grant KL, Schmidt BT, Flohr TG (2015) The importance of spectral separation: an assessment of dual-energy spectral separation for quantitative ability and dose efficiency. Investig Radiol 50:114–118CrossRef

Titel: Single- and dual-energy CT of the abdomen: comparison of radiation dose and image quality of 2nd and 3rd generation dual-source CT
verfasst von: Julian L. Wichmann
Andrew D. Hardie
U. Joseph Schoepf
Lloyd M. Felmly
Jonathan D. Perry
Akos Varga-Szemes
Stefanie Mangold
Damiano Caruso
Christian Canstein
Thomas J. Vogl
Carlo N. De Cecco
Publikationsdatum: 10.05.2016
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4383-6

Update Radiologie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Single- and dual-energy CT of the abdomen: comparison of radiation dose and image quality of 2nd and 3rd generation dual-source CT