Automatic exposure control in multichannel CT with tube current modulation to achieve a constant level of image noise: experimental assessment on pediatric phantoms.

Automatic exposure control (AEC) systems have been developed by computed tomography (CT) manufacturers to improve the consistency of image quality among patients and to control the absorbed dose. Since a multichannel helical CT scan may easily increase individual radiation doses, this technical improvement is of special interest in children who are particularly sensitive to ionizing radiation, but little information is currently available regarding the precise performance of these systems on small patients. Our objective was to assess an AEC system on pediatric dose phantoms by studying the impact of phantom transmission and acquisition parameters on tube current modulation, on the resulting absorbed dose and on image quality. We used a four-channel CT scan working with a patient-size and z-axis-based AEC system designed to achieve a constant noise within the reconstructed images by automatically adjusting the tube current during acquisition. The study was performed with six cylindrical poly(methylmethacrylate) (PMMA) phantoms of variable diameters (10-32 cm) and one 5 years of age equivalent pediatric anthropomorphic phantom. After a single scan projection radiograph (SPR), helical acquisitions were performed and images were reconstructed with a standard convolution kernel. Tube current modulation was studied with variable SPR settings (tube angle, mA, kVp) and helical parameters (6-20 HU noise indices, 80-140 kVp tube potential, 0.8-4 s. tube rotation time, 5-20 mm x-ray beam thickness, 0.75-1.5 pitch, 1.25-10 mm image thickness, variable acquisition, and reconstruction fields of view). CT dose indices (CTDIvol) were measured, and the image quality criterion used was the standard deviation of the CT number measured in reconstructed images of PMMA material. Observed tube current levels were compared to the expected values from Brooks and Di Chiro's [R.A. Brooks and G.D. Chiro, Med. Phys. 3, 237-240 (1976)] model and calculated values (product of a reference value multiplied by a dose ratio measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters). Our study demonstrates that this AEC system accurately modulates the tube current according to phantom size and transmission to achieve a stable image noise. The system accurately controls the tube current when changing tube rotation time, tube potential, or image thickness, with minimal variations of the resulting noise. Nevertheless, CT users should be aware of possible changes of tube current and resulting dose and quality according to several parameters: the tube angle and tube potential used for SPR, the x-ray beam thickness (tube current decreases and image noise increases when doubling x-ray beam thickness), the pitch value (a pitch decrease leads to a higher dose but also to a higher noise), and the acquisition field of view (FOV) (tube current is lower when using the small acquisition FOV compared to the large one, but the use of small acquisition FOV at 120 kVp leads to a peculiar increase of tube current and CTDIvol).

[1]  J Li,et al.  A dose reduction x-ray beam positioning system for high-speed multislice CT scanners. , 2000, Medical physics.

[2]  Ulrich Baum,et al.  Dose reduction in CT examination of children by an attenuation-based on-line modulation of tube current (CARE Dose) , 2002, European Radiology.

[3]  O. Linton,et al.  National conference on dose reduction in CT, with an emphasis on pediatric patients. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  W Huda,et al.  Technique factors and image quality as functions of patient weight at abdominal CT. , 2000, Radiology.

[5]  A S Brody,et al.  Minimizing radiation dose for pediatric body applications of single-detector helical CT: strategies at a large Children's Hospital. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  Mannudeep K Kalra,et al.  Detection of urinary tract stones at low-radiation-dose CT with z-axis automatic tube current modulation: phantom and clinical studies. , 2005, Radiology.

[7]  D. Frush,et al.  Helical CT of the body: are settings adjusted for pediatric patients? , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  M. Kalra,et al.  Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. , 2004, Radiology.

[9]  Dianna D Cody,et al.  Strategies for formulating appropriate MDCT techniques when imaging the chest, abdomen, and pelvis in pediatric patients. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  D. Ott,et al.  Diminuer la dose en tomodensitométrie abdominale : baisser la tension (kV) ou la charge (mAs) ? , 2004 .

[11]  Thomas L Toth,et al.  Comparison of Z-axis automatic tube current modulation technique with fixed tube current CT scanning of abdomen and pelvis. , 2004, Radiology.

[12]  David J. Brenner,et al.  Estimating cancer risks from pediatric CT: going from the qualitative to the quantitative , 2002, Pediatric Radiology.

[13]  C. McCollough,et al.  Relationship between noise, dose, and pitch in cardiac multi-detector row CT. , 2006, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[14]  Influence of detector collimation on SNR in four different MDCT scanners using a reconstructed slice thickness of 5 mm , 2004, European Radiology.

[15]  D. Brenner,et al.  Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  Thomas L Toth,et al.  Radiation from "extra" images acquired with abdominal and/or pelvic CT: effect of automatic tube current modulation. , 2004, Radiology.

[17]  J. Lutze,et al.  Dose reduction in subsecond multislice spiral CT examination of children by online tube current modulation , 2004, European Radiology.

[18]  J. Zoetelief,et al.  Recommendations for patient dosimetry in diagnostic radiology using TLD. Topical report , 2000 .

[19]  E Grabbe,et al.  [An anatomically adapted variation of the tube current in CT. Studies on radiation dosage reduction and image quality]. , 1995, RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin.

[20]  D A Pierce,et al.  Radiation-Related Cancer Risks at Low Doses among Atomic Bomb Survivors , 2000, Radiation research.

[21]  C H McCollough,et al.  Performance evaluation of a multi-slice CT system. , 1999, Medical physics.

[22]  G. Starck,et al.  A method to obtain the same levels of CT image noise for patients of various sizes, to minimize radiation dose. , 2002, The British journal of radiology.

[23]  Cynthia H McCollough Automatic exposure control in CT: are we done yet? , 2005, Radiology.

[24]  Icrp Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 60 , 1991 .

[25]  Werner Jaschke,et al.  Das Smart-Scan-Verfahren der Spiral-Computertomographie : Eine neue Methode der Dosisreduktion , 1996 .

[26]  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.

[27]  R. Kleinerman Cancer risks following diagnostic and therapeutic radiation exposure in children , 2006, Pediatric Radiology.

[28]  J. Remy,et al.  Multi-detector row spiral CT angiography of the thoracic outlet: dose reduction with anatomically adapted online tube current modulation and preset dose savings. , 2004, Radiology.

[29]  Donald P Frush,et al.  Improved pediatric multidetector body CT using a size-based color-coded format. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[30]  John M Boone,et al.  Dose reduction in pediatric CT: a rational approach. , 2003, Radiology.

[31]  C. Muirhead,et al.  What are the risks from medical X-rays and other low dose radiation? , 2006, The British journal of radiology.

[32]  C. McCollough,et al.  CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. , 2006, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[33]  W A Kalender,et al.  Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. II. Phantom measurements. , 1999, Medical physics.

[34]  C. Suess,et al.  Dose optimization in pediatric CT: current technology and future innovations , 2002, Pediatric Radiology.

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

[36]  岩崎 民子 SOURCES AND EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION : United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes , 2002 .

[37]  Walter Huda,et al.  Effective doses to adult and pediatric patients , 2002, Pediatric Radiology.

[38]  W A Kalender,et al.  Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. I. Simulation studies. , 1999, Medical physics.

[39]  M. V. van Leeuwen,et al.  A rational approach to dose reduction in CT: individualized scan protocols , 2001, European Radiology.

[40]  R. Brooks,et al.  Statistical limitations in x-ray reconstructive tomography. , 1976, Medical physics.

[41]  R. Günther,et al.  Individually adapted examination protocols for reduction of radiation exposure for 16-MDCT chest examinations. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[42]  R. Doll,et al.  Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[43]  Thomas L Toth,et al.  Chest CT performed with z-axis modulation: scanning protocol and radiation dose. , 2005, Radiology.

[44]  P. Vock CT dose reduction in children , 2005, European Radiology.

[45]  B. Wall,et al.  Reference Doses for Paediatric Computed Tomography , 2000 .

[46]  James H Thrall,et al.  Multi-detector row CT: radiation dose characteristics. , 2003, Radiology.

[47]  D. Frush,et al.  Helical CT of the body: a survey of techniques used for pediatric patients. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[48]  J. Valentin,et al.  Abstract: Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures, ICRP Publication 85 , 2000 .

[49]  Thomas L Toth,et al.  Sixteen-detector row CT of abdomen and pelvis: study for optimization of Z-axis modulation technique performed in 153 patients. , 2004, Radiology.

[50]  W. Huda,et al.  Radiation Exposure in Computed Tomography , 2002 .

[51]  U. Schneider,et al.  Evaluation des Elektronendichte-Phantoms CIRS Model 62 , 2001 .

[52]  Thomas Flohr,et al.  Comparison of angular and combined automatic tube current modulation techniques with constant tube current CT of the abdomen and pelvis. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[53]  K. Fälth‐magnusson,et al.  Radiation risk and cost-benefit analysis of a paediatric radiology procedure: results from a national study. , 2005, The British journal of radiology.

[54]  Determination of effective energies in CT calibration , 1978 .

[55]  B. Schmidt,et al.  A PC program for estimating organ dose and effective dose values in computed tomography , 1999, European Radiology.

[56]  T. Mulkens,et al.  Use of an automatic exposure control mechanism for dose optimization in multi-detector row CT examinations: clinical evaluation. , 2005, Radiology.