Appropriate patient selection at abdominal dual-energy CT using 80 kV: relationship between patient size, image noise, and image quality.

PURPOSE To determine the computed tomographic (CT) detector configuration, patient size, and image noise limitations that will result in acceptable image quality of 80-kV images obtained at abdominal dual-energy CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS The Institutional Review Board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study from archival material from patients consenting to the use of medical records for research purposes. A retrospective review of contrast material-enhanced abdominal dual-energy CT scans in 116 consecutive patients was performed. Three gastrointestinal radiologists noted detector configuration and graded image quality and artifacts at specified levels-midliver, midpancreas, midkidneys, and terminal ileum-by using two five-point scales. In addition, an organ-specific enhancement-to-noise ratio and background noise were measured in each patient. Patient size was measured by using the longest linear dimension at the level of interest, weight, lean body weight, body mass index, and body surface area. Detector configuration, patient sizes, and image noise levels that resulted in unacceptable image quality and artifact rankings (score of 4 or higher) were determined by using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS A 14 × 1.2-mm detector configuration resulted in fewer images with unacceptable quality than did the 64 × 0.6-mm configuration at all anatomic levels (P = .004, .01, and .02 for liver, pancreas, and kidneys, respectively). Image acceptability for the kidneys and ileum was significantly greater than that for the liver for all readers and detector configurations (P < .001). For the 14 × 1.2-mm detector configuration, patient longest linear dimensions yielding acceptable image quality across readers ranged from 34.9 to 35.8 cm at the four anatomic levels. CONCLUSION An 80-kV abdominal CT can be performed with appropriate diagnostic quality in a substantial percentage of the population, but it is not recommended beyond the described patient size for each anatomic level. The 14 × 1.2-mm detector configuration should be preferred.

[1]  Karl Stierstorfer,et al.  An online cross-scatter correction algorithm for dual-source CT: effects on CT number accuracy and noise , 2009, Medical Imaging.

[2]  Hersh Chandarana,et al.  Dual-source dual-energy MDCT of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: initial observations with data generated at 80 kVp and at simulated weighted-average 120 kVp. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  James T Dobbins,et al.  Quantitative , 2020, Psychology through Critical Auto-Ethnography.

[4]  M. Macari,et al.  Dual energy CT: preliminary observations and potential clinical applications in the abdomen , 2008, European Radiology.

[5]  M. Reiser,et al.  Material differentiation by dual energy CT: initial experience , 2007, European Radiology.

[6]  J. Paul,et al.  Low-kilovoltage multi-detector row chest CT in adults: feasibility and effect on image quality and iodine dose. , 2004, Radiology.

[7]  W Huda,et al.  Image mottle in abdominal CT. , 1999, Investigative radiology.

[8]  Bernhard Schmidt,et al.  Radiation dose and image quality in pediatric CT: effect of technical factors and phantom size and shape. , 2004, Radiology.

[9]  Francis R Verdun,et al.  Effect of X-ray Tube Parameters, Iodine Concentration, and Patient Size on Image Quality in Pulmonary Computed Tomography Angiography: A Chest-Phantom-Study , 2008, Investigative radiology.

[10]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[11]  Walter Huda,et al.  Patient size and x-ray technique factors in head computed tomography examinations. II. Image quality. , 2004, Medical physics.

[12]  Takeshi Nakaura,et al.  Lower tube voltage reduces contrast material and radiation doses on 16-MDCT aortography. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  Alvin C. Silva,et al.  Iterative Reconstruction Technique for Reducing Body Radiation Dose at Ct: Feasibility Study Hara Et Al. Ct Iterative Reconstruction Technique Gastrointestinal Imaging Original Research , 2022 .

[14]  Mosteller Rd.  Simplified Calculation of Body-Surface Area , 1987 .

[15]  More on simplified calculation of body-surface area. , 1988 .

[16]  D. Hough,et al.  Dual-energy and dual-source CT: is there a role in the abdomen and pelvis? , 2009, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[17]  W. Huda,et al.  Patient size and x-ray technique factors in head computed tomography examinations. I. Radiation doses. , 2004, Medical physics.

[18]  K. Stierstorfer,et al.  First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system , 2006, European Radiology.

[19]  E. Nickoloff,et al.  Influence of phantom diameter, kVp and scan mode upon computed tomography dose index. , 2003, Medical physics.

[20]  J. Hsieh.  Adaptive streak artifact reduction in computed tomography resulting from excessive x-ray photon noise. , 1998, Medical physics.

[21]  Kazuo Awai,et al.  Radiation dose reduction without degradation of low-contrast detectability at abdominal multisection CT with a low-tube voltage technique: phantom study. , 2005, Radiology.

[22]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Hypervascular liver tumors: low tube voltage, high tube current multi-detector row CT for enhanced detection--phantom study. , 2008, Radiology.

[23]  James C. Williams,et al.  Noninvasive differentiation of uric acid versus non-uric acid kidney stones using dual-energy CT. , 2007, Academic radiology.

[24]  Cynthia M. McCollough,et al.  Projection space denoising with bilateral filtering and CT noise modeling for dose reduction in CT. , 2009, Medical physics.

[25]  Takeshi Nakaura,et al.  Abdominal CT with low tube voltage: preliminary observations about radiation dose, contrast enhancement, image quality, and noise. , 2005, Radiology.

[26]  Jean-Baptiste Thibault,et al.  A three-dimensional statistical approach to improved image quality for multislice helical CT. , 2007, Medical physics.