Dose and Image Quality of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography as Compared With Conventional Multislice Computed Tomography in Abdominal Imaging

ObjectivesRecent technical developments have facilitated the application of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for interventional and intraoperative imaging. The aim of this study was to compare the radiation doses and image quality in CBCT with those of conventional multislice spiral computed tomography (MSCT) for abdominal and genitourinary imaging. MethodsDifferent CBCT and MSCT protocols for imaging soft tissues and hard-contrast objects at different dose levels were investigated in this study. Local skin and organ doses were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters placed in an anthropomorphic phantom. Moreover, the contrast-to-noise ratio, the noise-power spectrum, and the high-contrast resolution derived from the modulation transfer function were determined in a phantom with the same absorption properties as those of anthropomorphic phantom. ResultsThe effective dose of the examined abdominal/genitourinary CBCT protocols ranged between 0.35 mSv and 18.1 mSv. As compared with MSCT, the local skin dose of CBCT examinations could locally reach much higher doses up to 190 mGy. The effective dose necessary to realize the same contrast-to-noise ratio with CBCT and MSCT depended on the MSCT convolution kernel: the MSCT dose was smaller than the corresponding CBCT dose for a soft kernel but higher than that for a hard kernel. The noise-power spectrum of the CBCT images at tube voltages of 85/90 kV(p) is at least half of that of images measured at 103/115 kV(p) at any arbitrarily chosen spatial frequency. Although the pixel size and slice thickness of CBCT were half of those of the MSCT images, high-contrast resolution was inferior to the MSCT images reconstructed with a hard convolution kernel. ConclusionsAs compared with MSCT using a medium-hard convolution kernel, CBCT produces images at medium noise levels and, simultaneously, medium spatial resolution at approximately the same dose. It is well suited for visualizing hard-contrast objects in the abdomen with relatively low image noise and patient dose. For the detection of low-contrast objects at standard tube voltages of approximately 120 kV(p), however, MSCT should be preferred.

[1]  H. Alkadhi,et al.  In Vitro High-Resolution Flat-Panel Computed Tomographic Arthrography for Artificial Cartilage Defect Detection: Comparison With Multidetector Computed Tomography , 2013, Investigative radiology.

[2]  C. Yang,et al.  Effective dose estimates for cone beam computed tomography in interventional radiology , 2013, European Radiology.

[3]  S. Dittrich,et al.  Flachdetektor-Computertomografie in der diagnostischen und interventionellen Kinderkardiologie , 2013 .

[4]  Nancy A Obuchowski,et al.  Contrast-to-noise ratio and low-contrast object resolution on full- and low-dose MDCT: SAFIRE versus filtered back projection in a low-contrast object phantom and in the liver. , 2012, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  F. Verdun,et al.  Swiss Population Exposure to Radiation by Interventional Radiology in 2008 , 2012, Health physics.

[6]  Gustav Andreisek,et al.  Flat-Panel CT Arthrography: Feasibility Study and Comparison to Multidetector CT Arthrography , 2012, Investigative radiology.

[7]  C. Blendl,et al.  Untersuchung zur geometrischen 3-D-Genauigkeit und zur Bildqualität (MTF, SRV und W) von Volumentomografie-Einrichtungen (CT, CBCT und DVT) , 2012 .

[8]  M. Fiebich,et al.  [Investigation on the 3 D geometric accuracy and on the image quality (MTF, SNR and NPS) of volume tomography units (CT, CBCT and DVT)]. , 2012, RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin.

[9]  F R Verdun,et al.  Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part I. Technical characterization of the systems , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  F R Verdun,et al.  Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part II. NPWE as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  Michael N. Ferrandino,et al.  Reduced radiation exposure with the use of an air retrograde pyelogram during fluoroscopic access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. , 2011, Journal of endourology.

[12]  T. Struffert,et al.  Imaging of cochlear implant electrode array with flat-detector CT and conventional multislice CT: comparison of image quality and radiation dose , 2010, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[13]  A. Elster,et al.  Effective Doses in Radiology and Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine: A Catalog , 2010 .

[14]  P. Khong.  Existing resources to communicate risk in Pediatric imaging: An international perspective from the International commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) , 2010 .

[15]  G. Lauritsch,et al.  Kardiale Anwendung der C-Arm-Computertomographie , 2009, Der Radiologe.

[16]  M. Kuo,et al.  C-arm cone-beam CT: general principles and technical considerations for use in interventional radiology. , 2009, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[17]  G. Brix,et al.  Dose reduction by automatic exposure control in multidetector computed tomography: comparison between measurement and calculation , 2009, European Radiology.

[18]  Uday Patel,et al.  What radiation exposure can a patient expect during a single stone episode? , 2008, Journal of endourology.

[19]  Kai Yang,et al.  Noise power properties of a cone-beam CT system for breast cancer detection. , 2008, Medical physics.

[20]  O. Ganslandt,et al.  Flat Panel Detector Angiographic CT for Stent-Assisted Coil Embolization of Broad-Based Cerebral Aneurysms , 2007, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[21]  Thomas Albrecht,et al.  Contrast-Enhanced Abdominal Angiographic CT for Intra-abdominal Tumor Embolization: A New Tool for Vessel and Soft Tissue Visualization , 2007, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[22]  C. Iselin,et al.  Low-dose versus standard-dose CT protocol in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[23]  Maurice Stephan Michel,et al.  Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. , 2007, European urology.

[24]  J. Boone,et al.  Evaluation of the spatial resolution characteristics of a cone-beam breast CT scanner. , 2006, Medical physics.

[25]  Richard H. Cohan,et al.  CT urography: definition, indications and techniques. A guideline for clinical practice , 2007, European Radiology.

[26]  Rebecca Fahrig,et al.  Dose and image quality for a cone-beam C-arm CT system. , 2006, Medical physics.

[27]  Shuhei Komatsu,et al.  A combination-weighted Feldkamp-based reconstruction algorithm for cone-beam CT , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[28]  H. Schlattl,et al.  Modeling of realistic raw data for image reconstruction: quantifying scattering noise in different CT geometries , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[29]  Ken Ueda,et al.  Cone-Beam CT with Flat-Panel-Detector Digital Angiography System: Early Experience in Abdominal Interventional Procedures , 2006, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[30]  Michael Söderman,et al.  3D roadmap in neuroangiography: technique and clinical interest , 2005, Neuroradiology.

[31]  Thomas Brunner,et al.  Three-dimensional imaging and cone beam volume CT in C-arm angiography with flat panel detector. , 2005, Diagnostic and interventional radiology.

[32]  A. Berenstein,et al.  Simultaneous bilateral internal carotid artery 3D rotational angiography. , 2004, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[33]  Julia F. Barrett,et al.  Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. , 2004, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[34]  S. Silverman,et al.  Patient radiation dose at CT urography and conventional urography. , 2004, Radiology.

[35]  G. Brix,et al.  Assessment of a theoretical formalism for dose estimation in CT: an anthropomorphic phantom study , 2004, European Radiology.

[36]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems. , 2003, Medical physics.

[37]  Uwe Spetzger,et al.  Comparison of three-dimensional rotational angiography with digital subtraction angiography in the assessment of ruptured cerebral aneurysms. , 2002, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[38]  H. Nagel,et al.  CT-Expositionspraxis in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland , 2001 .

[39]  D W McRobbie,et al.  Radiation Exposure in Computed Tomography: Fundamentals, Influencing Parameters, Dose Assessment, Optimisation, Scanner Data, Terminology , 2001 .

[40]  John M. Boone,et al.  X-Ray Production, Interaction, and Detection in Diagnostic Imaging , 2000 .

[41]  James T. Dobbins.  Image Quality Metrics for Digital Systems , 2000 .

[42]  H. Brückmann,et al.  Three-dimensional reconstructed rotational digital subtraction angiography in planning treatment of intracranial aneurysms , 2000, European Radiology.

[43]  Raymond P. Rossi,et al.  Instrumentation Requirements of Diagnostic Radiological Physicists , 1998 .

[44]  H. Blume,et al.  DQE(f) of four generations of computed radiography acquisition devices. , 1995, Medical physics.

[45]  J L Poletti,et al.  Measurement of x-ray image intensifier sharpness in the x-ray department. , 1988, Physics in medicine and biology.

[46]  P. Judy,et al.  The noise power spectrum of CT images. , 1987, Physics in medicine and biology.

[47]  W. Huda,et al.  Estimation of mean organ doses in diagnostic radiology from Rando phantom measurements. , 1984, Health physics.

[48]  S. Bull,et al.  Gamma camera MTFs from edge response function measurements. , 1983, Medical physics.

[49]  K. Hanson,et al.  Detectability in computed tomographic images. , 1979, Medical physics.

[50]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Application of information theory to the assessment of computed tomography. , 1979, Medical physics.

[51]  J. Ehrhardt,et al.  Modulation transfer function of the EMI CT head scanner. , 1977, Medical physics.

[52]  P. Judy,et al.  The line spread function and modulation transfer function of a computed tomographic scanner. , 1976, Medical physics.

[53]  K. Rossmann.  Point spread-function, line spread-function, and modulation transfer function. Tools for the study of imaging systems. , 1969, Radiology.

[54]  K Hoeg,et al.  [Kidney stones]. , 1968, Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening : tidsskrift for praktisk medicin, ny raekke.