Dual-source abdominopelvic computed tomography: Comparison of image quality and radiation dose of 80 kVp and 80/150 kVp with tin filter

Abstract

Objective To compare the radiation dose and the objective and subjective image quality of 80 kVp and 80/150 kVp with tin filter (80/Sn150 kVp) computed tomography (CT) in oncology patients. Methods One-hundred-and-forty-five consecutive oncology patients who underwent third-generation dual-source dual-energy CT of the abdomen for evaluation of malignant visceral, peritoneal, extraperitoneal, and bone tumor were retrospectively recruited. Two radiologists independently reviewed each observation in 80 kVp CT and 80/Sn150 kVp CT. Modified line-density profile of the tumor and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were measured. Diagnostic confidence, lesion conspicuity, and subjective image quality were calculated and compared between image sets. The effective dose and size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) were calculated in the image sets. Results Modified line-density profile analysis revealed higher attenuation differences between the tumor and normal tissue in 80 kVp CT than in 80/Sn150 kVp CT (127 vs. 107, P = 0.05). The 80 kVp CT showed increased CNR in the liver (8.0 vs. 7.6) and the aorta (18.9 vs. 16.3) than the 80/Sn150 kVp CT. The 80 kVp CT yielded higher enhancement of organs (4.9 ± 0.2 vs. 4.7 ± 0.4, P<0.001) and lesion conspicuity (4.9 ± 0.3 vs. 4.8 ± 0.5, P = 0.035) than the 80/ Sn150 kVp CT; overall image quality and confidence index were comparable. The effective dose was reduced by 45.2% with 80 kVp CT (2.3 mSv ± 0.9) compared to 80/Sn150 kVp CT

Obesity-Related Pitfalls of Virtual versus True Non-Contrast Imaging—An Intraindividual Comparison in 253 Oncologic Patients

“…In clinical routine, the achievable dose savings heavily depend on the patient cohort and the individual protocol settings. Particularly in comparison with low kV levels, a direct comparison of image quality may show a disadvantage of DECT in terms of image contrast [25]. Additionally, DECT protocols require a change in the radiologist's workflow, as most advantages of dual-energy-based imaging only become evident when reading the associated virtual monoenergetic and/or virtual non-contrast datasets in addition [25].…”

“…Particularly in comparison with low kV levels, a direct comparison of image quality may show a disadvantage of DECT in terms of image contrast [25]. Additionally, DECT protocols require a change in the radiologist's workflow, as most advantages of dual-energy-based imaging only become evident when reading the associated virtual monoenergetic and/or virtual non-contrast datasets in addition [25]. The extent to which DECT protocols are implemented for clinical staging examinations should be weighed up by the respective radiologist.…”

A Feasibility Study to Evaluate Replacing Conventional Computed Tomography at 120 KVP with Low Radiation Dose and Low Iodine Intake Based on Body Mass Index-Adapted Abdominal Computed Tomography Angiography in 291 Patients

“…Our design was consistent with the opinion proposed by multiple studies that BMI is an essential basis for selecting tube voltage level [ 23 ]. Our results showed that radiation doses in the individualized kVp groups were reduced by 70.61%, 56.72% and 31.87%, respectively, compared with the control groups, which is consistent with the results of Nagayama [ 24 ], and Ren [ 25 ].Choi et al [ 26 ] also showed that 80 kVp CT reduced the radiation dose by 45.2% in oncology patients while showing comparable or superior image quality to that of 80/Sn150 kVp CT for abdominal tumor evaluation.…”

Finding the optimal tube current and iterative reconstruction strength in liver imaging; two needles in one haystack

“…Establishing the objective image quality with SNR and CNR seems rather straightforward. Although, when searching for reliable thresholds, a wide variety of values is found in the literature, all presumed to be of diagnostic image quality, and no clear cut-off values have been established [ 33 – 37 ]. In addition, previous literature states that both SNR and CNR might not encompass the complete appreciation of image quality [ 38 , 39 ].…”