Published in:
01-10-2017
Systematic radiation dose optimization of abdominal dual-energy CT on a second-generation dual-source CT scanner: assessment of the accuracy of iodine uptake measurement and image quality in an in vitro and in vivo investigations
Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 10/2017
Login to get accessAbstract
Purpose
To assess the accuracy of iodine quantification in a phantom study at different radiation dose levels with dual-energy dual-source CT and to evaluate image quality and radiation doses in patients undergoing a single-energy and two dual-energy abdominal CT protocols.
Methods
In a phantom study, the accuracy of iodine quantification (4.5–23.5 mgI/mL) was evaluated using the manufacturer-recommended and three dose-optimized dual-energy protocols. In a patient study, 75 abdomino-pelvic CT examinations were acquired as follows: 25 CT scans with the manufacturer-recommended dual-energy protocol (protocol A); 25 CT scans with a dose-optimized dual-energy protocol (protocol B); and 25 CT scans with a single-energy CT protocol (protocol C). CTDIvol and objective noise were measured. Five readers scored each scan according to six subjective image quality parameters (noise, contrast, artifacts, visibility of small structures, sharpness, overall diagnostic confidence).
Results
In the phantom study, differences between the real and measured iodine concentrations ranged from −8.8% to 17.0% for the manufacturer-recommended protocol and from −1.6% to 20.5% for three dose-optimized protocols. In the patient study, the CTDIvol of protocol A, B, and C were 12.5 ± 1.9, 7.5 ± 1.2, and 6.5 ± 1.7 mGycm, respectively (p < 0.001), and the average image noise values were 6.6 ± 1.2, 7.8 ± 1.4, and 9.6 ± 2.2 HU, respectively (p < 0.001). No significant differences in the six subjective image quality parameters were observed between the dose-optimized dual-energy and the single-energy protocol.
Conclusion
A dose reduction of 41% is feasible for the manufacturer-recommended, abdominal dual-energy CT protocol, as it maintained the accuracy of iodine measurements and subjective image quality compared to a single-energy protocol.