Scan time and patient dose for thoracic imaging in neonates and small children using axial volumetric 320-detector row CT compared to helical 64-, 32-, and 16- detector row CT acquisitions

BackgroundRecently a 320-detector-row CT (MDCT) scanner has become available that allows axial volumetric scanning of a 16-cm-long range (50 cm field of view) in a single 0.35-s rotation. For imaging neonates and small children, volume scanning is potentially of great advantage as the entire scan range can be acquired in 0.35 s, which can reduce motion artefacts and may reduce the need for sedation in clinical CT imaging. Also, because there is no over-ranging associated with axial volumetric scanning, this may reduce patient radiation dose.ObjectiveTo evaluate, by means of a phantom study, scan time and patient dose for thoracic imaging in neonates and small children by using axial cone-beam and helical fan-beam MDCT acquisitions.Materials and methodsPaediatric imaging protocols were assessed for a 320-MDCT volumetric scanner (Aquilion ONE, Toshiba, Otawara, Japan). The 320-MDCT scanner allows for cone-beam acquisitions with coverage up to 160 mm, but it also allows for helical fan-beam acquisitions in 64-, 32-, or 16-MDCT modes. The acquisition configurations that were evaluated were 320 × 0.5 mm, 240 × 0.5 mm, and 160 × 0.5 mm for axial volumetric scanning, and 64 × 0.5 mm, 32 × 0.5 mm, and 16 × 0.5 mm for helical scanning. Dose assessment was performed for clinically relevant paediatric angiographic or chest/mediastinum acquisition protocols with tube voltages of 80 or 100 kVp and tube currents between 40 and 80 mA.ResultsScan time was 0.35 s for 320-MDCT acquisitions, scan times varied between 1.9 s and 8.3 s for helical acquisitions. Dose savings varying between 18% and 40% were achieved with axial volumetric scanning as compared to helical scanning (for 320- versus 64-MDCT at 160 mm and 80 kVp, and for 320- versus 16-MDCT at 80 mm and 100 kVp, respectively). Statistically significant reduction in radiation dose was found for axial 320-MDCT volumetric scanning compared to helical 64-, 32-, and 16-MDCT scanning.ConclusionAxial thoracic CT of neonates and small children with volumetric 320-MDCT can be performed between 5 and 24 times faster compared to helical scanning and can save patient dose.

[1]  T. Fearon,et al.  Normalized pediatric organ-absorbed doses from CT examinations. , 1987, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  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.

[3]  Jacob Geleijns,et al.  Overranging in multisection CT: quantification and relative contribution to dose--comparison of four 16-section CT scanners. , 2007, Radiology.

[4]  J. Damilakis,et al.  Influence of z overscanning on normalized effective doses calculated for pediatric patients undergoing multidetector CT examinations. , 2007, Medical physics.

[5]  W Huda,et al.  Effective doses to patients undergoing thoracic computed tomography examinations. , 2000, Medical physics.

[6]  Willi A Kalender,et al.  Effects of adaptive section collimation on patient radiation dose in multisection spiral CT. , 2009, Radiology.

[7]  Walter Huda,et al.  Converting dose-length product to effective dose at CT. , 2008, Radiology.

[8]  M. McNitt-Gray,et al.  Computed tomography dose assessment for a 160 mm wide, 320 detector row, cone beam CT scanner , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  Wesley E Bolch,et al.  Organ and effective doses in pediatric patients undergoing helical multislice computed tomography examination. , 2007, Medical physics.

[10]  J. Paul,et al.  Evaluation of image quality and radiation dose of thoracic and coronary dual-source CT in 110 infants with congenital heart disease , 2009, Pediatric Radiology.

[11]  P C Shrimpton,et al.  National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003. , 2006, The British journal of radiology.

[12]  C. Kawaura,et al.  Comparative evaluation of organ and effective doses for paediatric patients with those for adults in chest and abdominal CT examinations. , 2007, The British journal of radiology.

[13]  H. S. Osborne,et al.  The international electrotechnical commission , 1953, Electrical Engineering.

[14]  W Huda,et al.  An approach for the estimation of effective radiation dose at CT in pediatric patients. , 1997, Radiology.

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

[16]  W. Huda,et al.  Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. , 2008, Radiology.

[17]  P C Shrimpton,et al.  Influence of patient age on normalized effective doses calculated for CT examinations. , 2002, The British journal of radiology.

[18]  Bo Wang,et al.  Age-specific effective doses for pediatric MSCT examinations at a large children’s hospital using DLP conversion coefficients: a simple estimation method , 2008, Pediatric Radiology.

[19]  Walter Huda,et al.  Radiation doses and risks in chest computed tomography examinations. , 2007, Proceedings of the American Thoracic Society.

[20]  K Murase,et al.  Comparison of patient doses in 256-slice CT and 16-slice CT scanners. , 2006, The British journal of radiology.

[21]  N. Theocharopoulos,et al.  Estimation of effective doses to adult and pediatric patients from multislice computed tomography: A method based on energy imparted. , 2006, Medical physics.