Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of the scout view orientation on the radiation exposure and image quality in thoracic and abdominal CT

  • Physics
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the impact of the scout view orientation on radiation exposure and image quality in thoracoabdominal CT, when automated tube voltage selection (ATVS) and automated tube current modulation (ATCM) are used in combination with scan planning on a single scout view.

Methods

Fifty patients underwent two thoracoabdominal CT examinations, one planned on an anteroposterior scout view, one planned on a lateral scout view. Both examinations included contrast-enhanced imaging of chest (CH) and abdomen (AB) and non-contrast-enhanced imaging of the liver (LI). For all examinations the same imaging protocol was used on the same dual-source CT scanner. The radiation exposure was recorded and objective as well as visual image quality was assessed for all examinations.

Results

The median dose-length product was significantly lower in scans planned on a lateral scout view (CH: 179 vs. 218 mGy*cm, LI: 148 vs. 178 mGy*cm, AB: 324 vs. 370 mGy*cm, p < 0.0001). Objective image quality was marginal lower in scans planned on a lateral scout view, whereas the visual image quality was rated as equal.

Conclusion

At the tested radiation doses, the orientation of the scout view has a significant impact on the radiation exposure but no clinically relevant impact on the image quality.

Key Points

• The scout view orientation has a significant impact on the radiation exposure.

• The scout view orientation has no clinically relevant impact on image quality.

• A lateral scout view should be preferred with regard to radiation exposure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ATCM:

Automated tube current modulation

ATVS:

Automated tube voltage selection

BMI:

Body mass index

CNR:

Contrast-to-noise-ratio

ap:

Anteroposterior

ap. s. v.:

Anteroposterior scout view

CT:

Computed tomography

CTDIvol :

Volumetric CT dose index

DLP:

Dose length product

ED:

Effective dose

HU:

Hounsfield unit

IQR:

Interquartile range

ROI:

Region of interest

lat:

Lateral

lat. s. v.:

Lateral scout view

SD:

Standard deviation

SNR:

Signal-to-noise-ratio

References

  1. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mettler FA Jr, Bhargavan M, Faulkner K, Gilley DB, Gray JE, Ibbott GS, Lipoti JA, Mahesh M, McCrohan JL, Stabin MG, Thomadsen BR, Yoshizumi TT (2009) Radiologic and nuclear medicine studies in the United States and worldwide: frequency, radiation dose, and comparison with other radiation sources--1950-2007. Radiology 253:520–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. (2009) NRCP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Report 160 - Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. NRCP

  4. Raman SP, Johnson PT, Deshmukh S, Mahesh M, Grant KL, Fishman EK (2013) CT dose reduction applications: available tools on the latest generation of CT scanners. J Am Coll Radiol JACR 10:37–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tzedakis A, Damilakis J, Perisinakis K, Stratakis J, Gourtsoyiannis N (2005) The effect of z overscanning on patient effective dose from multidetector helical computed tomography examinations. Med Phys 32:1621–1629

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Christner JA, Zavaletta VA, Eusemann CD, Walz-Flannigan AI, McCollough CH (2010) Dose reduction in helical CT: dynamically adjustable z-axis X-ray beam collimation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:W49–W55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kordolaimi SD, Argentos S, Pantos I, Kelekis NL, Efstathopoulos EP (2013) A new era in computed tomographic dose optimization: the impact of iterative reconstruction on image quality and radiation dose. J Comput Assist Tomogr 37:924–931

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Winklehner A, Karlo C, Puippe G et al (2011) Raw data-based iterative reconstruction in body CTA: evaluation of radiation dose saving potential. Eur Radiol 21:2521–2526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee EJ, Lee SK, Agid R, Howard P, Bae JM, terBrugge K (2009) Comparison of image quality and radiation dose between fixed tube current and combined automatic tube current modulation in craniocervical CT angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 30:1754–1759

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee S, Yoon SW, Yoo SM et al (2011) 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 52:1101–1106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Krazinski AW, Meinel FG, Schoepf UJ et al (2014) Reduced radiation dose and improved image quality at cardiovascular CT angiography by automated attenuation-based tube voltage selection: intra-individual comparison. Eur Radiol 24:2677–2684

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Frellesen C, Stock W, Kerl JM et al (2014) Topogram-based automated selection of the tube potential and current in thoraco-abdominal trauma CT - a comparison to fixed kV with mAs modulation alone. Eur Radiol 24:1725–1734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Habibzadeh MA, Ay MR, Asl AR, Ghadiri H, Zaidi H (2012) Impact of miscentering on patient dose and image noise in x-ray CT imaging: phantom and clinical studies. Phys Med 28:191–199

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mayo-Smith WW, Hara AK, Mahesh M, Sahani DV, Pavlicek W (2014) How I do it: managing radiation dose in CT. Radiology 273:657–672

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Papadakis AE, Perisinakis K, Damilakis J (2008) Automatic exposure control in pediatric and adult multidetector CT examinations: a phantom study on dose reduction and image quality. Med Phys 35:4567–4576

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lambert JW, Kumar S, Chen JS, Wang ZJ, Gould RG, Yeh BM (2015) Investigating the CT localizer radiograph: acquisition parameters, patient centring and their combined influence on radiation dose. Br J Radiol 88:20140730

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tirkes T, Hollar MA, Tann M, Kohli MD, Akisik F, Sandrasegaran K (2013) Response criteria in oncologic imaging: review of traditional and new criteria. Radiographics Rev Publ Radiol Soc N Am Inc 33:1323–1341

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3632-4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lurz M, Lell MM, Wuest W et al (2015) Automated tube voltage selection in thoracoabdominal computed tomography at high pitch using a third-generation dual-source scanner: image quality and radiation dose performance. Investig Radiol 50:352–360

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Singh S, Petrovic D, Jamnik E et al (2014) Effect of localizer radiograph on radiation dose associated with automatic exposure control: human cadaver and patient study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 38:293–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kaasalainen T, Palmu K, Reijonen V, Kortesniemi M (2014) Effect of patient centering on patient dose and image noise in chest CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:123–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Moro L, Panizza D, D'Ambrosio D, Carne I (2013) Considerations on an automatic computed tomography tube current modulation system. Radiat Prot Dosim 156:525–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Kai Nassenstein, MD. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. The study was approved by the local ethics committee. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board due to the retrospective character of the study and anonymized data evaluation. Methodology: retrospective, observational, performed at one institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45122, Essen, Germany

    S. Suntharalingam, A. Wetter, N. Guberina, J. Theysohn, A. Ringelstein, T. Schlosser, M. Forsting & K. Nassenstein

Authors
  1. S. Suntharalingam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Wetter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. N. Guberina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Theysohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Ringelstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. T. Schlosser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. Forsting
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. K. Nassenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Suntharalingam.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Suntharalingam, S., Wetter, A., Guberina, N. et al. Impact of the scout view orientation on the radiation exposure and image quality in thoracic and abdominal CT. Eur Radiol 26, 4072–4079 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4285-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4285-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation