Radiation dose and image quality in pediatric CT: effect of technical factors and phantom size and shape.

PURPOSE To evaluate effects of varying tube current and voltage on radiation dose, image noise, and image contrast with different phantom sizes and shapes. MATERIALS AND METHODS Four round lucite phantoms with 8-32-cm diameters were scanned with multi-detector row computed tomography (CT) and 80-120 kVp. Radiation dose was based on CT dose index, image noise, and iodine contrast and measured with constant and variable tube currents that were age appropriate for each tube voltage. Radiation dose and image noise and contrast were compared in round and oval 24-cm phantoms. For various combinations of technical factors and phantom sizes and shapes, percentage differences were calculated for radiation dose and image noise and contrast. Associations between tube voltage and radiation dose, image noise, and image contrast in round and oval phantoms were determined by fitting second-degree polynomials to data. Differences in radiation dose and image noise and contrast, which were attributable to differences in tube voltage, were tested with paired t tests. RESULTS With 165-mAs tube current, radiation doses with 140- and 80-kVp tube voltages were 103% ([41.9 mGy - 20.6 mGy]/20.6 mGy) and 58% ([10.2 mGy - 4.2 mGy]/10.1 mGy) higher in the 8-cm phantom than in the 32-cm phantom. When tube current was adapted for phantom size, radiation dose at 80 kVp in the 8-cm phantom was reduced by 82% ([10.1 mGy - 1.8 mGy]/10.1 mGy). In the 8-cm phantom, tube voltage was decreased from 120 to 80 kVp and tube current remained at 165 mAs, resulting in a 68% noise increase ([3.1 HU - 1.8 HU]/1.8 HU). With variable tube current, 80-kVp tube voltage in the 8-cm phantom led to a 138% noise increase ([7.3 HU - 3.1 HU]/3.1 HU). With reduced tube voltage, image contrast increased. In the 8-cm phantom, with a constant 165-mAs tube current and a decrease in tube voltage from 120 to 80 kVp, there was a 35% ([333 HU - 217 HU]/333 HU) increase in contrast. No difference was noted in radiation dose or noise between round and oval phantoms (P = .604 and P = .06, respectively), but a small statistically significant difference (1%) in contrast attenuation was demonstrated (P = .025). CONCLUSION Reduced tube voltage for pediatric contrast material-enhanced CT reduces radiation dose and maintains image contrast. Image noise increases, but the effect is minimal in smaller phantoms. An additional reduction in tube current further reduces radiation dose.

[1]  C A Kelsey,et al.  CT scanning: patterns of use and dose , 2000, Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection.

[2]  D. Brenner,et al.  Estimates of the cancer risks from pediatric CT radiation are not merely theoretical: comment on "point/counterpoint: in x-ray computed tomography, technique factors should be selected appropriate to patient size. against the proposition". , 2001, Medical physics.

[3]  Jiang Hsieh,et al.  Computer-simulated radiation dose reduction for abdominal multidetector CT of pediatric patients. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

[5]  L. F. Rogers Taking care of children: check out the parameters used for helical CT. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  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.

[7]  C A Kelsey,et al.  Use of radiology in U.S. general short-term hospitals: 1980-1990. , 1993, Radiology.

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

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

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

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

[12]  J. H. Hubbell,et al.  Photon mass attenuation and energy-absorption coefficients , 1982 .

[13]  Michael F McNitt-Gray,et al.  AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Topics in CT. Radiation dose in CT. , 2002, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[14]  G. Enríquez,et al.  Low-dose high-resolution CT of the chest in children and young adults: dose, cooperation, artifact incidence, and image quality. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[15]  J. Haaga,et al.  Radiation dose management: weighing risk versus benefit. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  E. Nickoloff,et al.  Current adult and pediatric CT doses , 2002, Pediatric Radiology.

[17]  W Huda,et al.  Radiation exposure and image quality in chest CT examinations. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  E L Nickoloff,et al.  Radiation exposures to patients from CT: reality, public perception, and policy. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[19]  C. Furetta,et al.  On the use of pediatric phantoms in the dose evaluation during computed tomography (CT) thorax examinations. , 2001, Medical physics.

[20]  T. Slovis,et al.  The ALARA concept in pediatric CT: myth or reality? , 2002, Radiology.

[21]  I. Kamel,et al.  Radiation dose reduction in CT of the pediatric pelvis. , 1994, Radiology.

[22]  M. Siegel Multiplanar and three-dimensional multi-detector row CT of thoracic vessels and airways in the pediatric population. , 2003, Radiology.

[23]  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.

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

[25]  A. Brody Thoracic CT Technique in Children , 2001, Journal of thoracic imaging.

[26]  C.-Y. Chan,et al.  Radiation dose reduction in paediatric cranial CT , 1999, Pediatric Radiology.

[27]  P. R. Bevington,et al.  Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences , 1969 .