Abdominal CT radiation dose reduction at Siriraj Hospital (Phase III)
Keywords:Abdominal computed tomography, Abdominal CT, Radiation dose reduction, Fixed tube current, FTC, Automatic tube current modulation, ATCM
OBJECTIVE: To compare the image quality and the radiation dose between fixed tube current (FTC) low dose abdominal CT currently performed at our hospital and new automatic tube current modulation (ATCM) low dose abdominal CT.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively performed ATCM low dose abdominal CT in 88 participants who had prior FTC low dose CT for comparison. Four experienced abdominal radiologists independently and blindly assessed the quality of FTC and ATCM low dose CT images by using a 5-point-scale satisfaction score (1 = unacceptable, 2 = poor, 3 = average, 4 = good, and 5 = excellent image quality). Each reader selected the preferred image set between FTC and ATCM low dose techniques for each participant. The image noise of the liver and the aorta in both techniques was measured. The volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) of both techniques was compared.
RESULTS: The mean satisfaction scores (SD) for FTC and ATCM low dose CT were 4.38 (0.66) and 4.38 (0.64), respectively with the ranges of 3 to 5 in both techniques, which were all acceptable for CT interpretation. The preferred image set between FTC and ATCM low dose techniques of each participant randomly selected by each reader were varied, depending on the readers’ opinions. The mean image noise of the aorta on FTC and ATCM low dose CT accounted for 34.75 and 36.46, respectively, while the mean image noise of the liver was 28.86 and 29.81, respectively. The mean CTDIvol (SD) of FTC and ATCM low dose CT were 8.42 (0.32) and 8.12 (0.43) mGy, respectively.
CONCLUSION: FTC and ATCM low dose abdominal CT provided comparable acceptable image quality and showed no clinical significance in radiation dose optimization.
Hall EJ, Brenner DJ. Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology: the impact of new epidemiological data. Br J Radiol 2012;85:e1316-7. doi: 10.1259/bjr/13739950.
Hara AK, Wellnitz CV, Paden RG, Pavlicek W, Sahani DV. Reducing body CT radiation dose: beyond just changing the numbers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;201:33-40. doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.10556.
Tamm EP, Rong XJ, Cody DD, Ernst RD, Fitzgerald NE, Kundra V. Quality initiatives: CT radiation dose reduction: how to implement change without sacrificing diagnostic quality. RadioGraphics 2011;31:1823-32. doi: 10.1148/rg.317115027.
Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Schmidt B, Westerman BL, Morgan HT, et al. Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology 2004;233:649-57. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2333031150.
Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Kamath RS, Halpern EF, Saini S. Comparison of Z-axis automatic tube current modulation technique with fixed tube current CT scanning of abdomen and pelvis. Radiology 2004;232:347-53. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2322031304.
Lee S, Yoon SW, Yoo SM, Ji YG, Kim KA, Kim SH, et al. Comparison of image quality and radiation dose between combined automatic tube current modulation and fixed tube current technique in CT of abdomen and pelvis. Acta Radiol 2011;52:1101-6. doi: 10.1258/ar.2011.100295.
Apisarnthanrak P, Buranont C, Boonma C, Janpanich S, Suwatananonthakij T, Klinhom A, et al. Abdominal CT radiation dose optimization at Siriraj Hospital. ASEAN J Radiol 2020;21(2):28-43.
Patino M, Fuentes JM, Singh S, Hahn PF, Sahani DV. Iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominopelvic CT: technical concepts and clinical implementation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;205:W19-31. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.13402.
Willemink MJ, de Jong PA, Leiner T, de Heer LM, Nievelstein RA, Budde RP, et al. Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography Part 1: technical principles. Eur Radiol 2013;23:1623-31. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2765-y.
Geyer LL, Schoepf UJ, Meinel FG, Nance JW Jr, Bastarrika G, Leipsic JA, et al. State of the art: iterative CT reconstruction techniques. Radiology 2015;276:339-57.
Mitsumori LM, Shuman WP, Busey JM, Kolokythas O, Koprowicz KM. Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction versus filtered back projection in the same patient: 64 channel liver CT image quality and patient radiation dose. Eur Radiol 2012;22:138-43. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2186-3.
Prakash P, Kalra MK, Kambadakone AK, Pien H, Hsieh J, Blake MA, et al. Reducing abdominal CT radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Invest Radiol 2010;45:202-10. doi: 10.1097/RLI.ob013e3181dzfeec.
Sagara Y, Hara AK, Pavlicek W, Silva AC, Paden RG, Wu Q. 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 2010;195:713-9. doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.2989.
Gervaise A, Osemont B, Louis M, Lecocq S, Teixeira P, Blum A. Standard dose versus low-dose abdominal and pelvic CT: comparison between filtered back projection versus adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D. Diagn Interv Imaging 2014;95:47-53. doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2013.05.005.
Apisarnthanrak P, Hongpinyo S, Saysivanon K, Boonma C, Janpanich S, Ketkan P, et al. Abdominal CT radiation dose optimization at Siriraj Hospital (Phase II). ASEAN J Radiol 2020;21(3):5-24. doi: https://doi.org/10.46475/aseanjr.v21i3.81
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 The ASEAN Journal of Radiology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Disclosure Forms and Copyright Agreements
All authors listed on the manuscript must complete both the electronic copyright agreement. (in the case of acceptance)