Prospective Evaluation of Reduced Dose Computed Tomography for the Detection of Low-Contrast Liver Lesions: Direct Comparison with Concurrent Standard Dose Imaging

ObjectivesTo prospectively compare the diagnostic performance of reduced-dose (RD) contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) with standard-dose (SD) CECT for detection of low-contrast liver lesions.MethodsSeventy adults with non-liver primary malignancies underwent abdominal SD-CECT immediately followed by RD-CECT, aggressively targeted at 60-70 % dose reduction. SD series were reconstructed using FBP. RD series were reconstructed with FBP, ASIR, and MBIR (Veo). Three readers—blinded to clinical history and comparison studies—reviewed all series, identifying liver lesions ≥4 mm. Non-blinded review by two experienced abdominal radiologists—assessing SD against available clinical and radiologic information—established the reference standard.ResultsRD-CECT mean effective dose was 2.01 ± 1.36 mSv (median, 1.71), a 64.1 ± 8.8 % reduction. Pooled per-patient performance data were (sensitivity/specificity/PPV/NPV/accuracy) 0.91/0.78/0.60/0.96/0.81 for SD-FBP compared with RD-FBP 0.79/0.75/0.54/0.91/0.76; RD-ASIR 0.84/0.75/0.56/0.93/0.78; and RD-MBIR 0.84/0.68/0.49/0.92/0.72. ROC AUC values were 0.896/0.834/0.858/0.854 for SD-FBP/RD-FBP/RD-ASIR/RD-MBIR, respectively. RD-FBP (P = 0.002) and RD-MBIR (P = 0.032) AUCs were significantly lower than those of SD-FBP; RD-ASIR was not (P = 0.052). Reader confidence was lower for all RD series (P < 0.001) compared with SD-FBP, especially when calling patients entirely negative.ConclusionsAggressive CT dose reduction resulted in inferior diagnostic performance and reader confidence for detection of low-contrast liver lesions compared to SD. Relative to RD-ASIR, RD-FBP showed decreased sensitivity and RD-MBIR showed decreased specificity.Key Points• Reduced-dose CECT demonstrates inferior diagnostic performance for detecting low-contrast liver lesions.• Reader confidence is lower with reduced-dose CECT compared to standard-dose CECT.• Overly aggressive dose reduction may result in misdiagnosis, regardless of reconstruction algorithm.• Careful consideration of perceived risks versus benefits of dose reduction is crucial.

[1]  Judy Yee,et al.  Dose reduction methods for CT colonography , 2013, Abdominal Imaging.

[2]  T. Derlin,et al.  Reduced-dose abdominopelvic CT using hybrid iterative reconstruction in suspected left-sided colonic diverticulitis , 2015, European Radiology.

[3]  David H. Kim,et al.  Prospective trial of the detection of urolithiasis on ultralow dose (sub mSv) noncontrast computerized tomography: direct comparison against routine low dose reference standard. , 2014, The Journal of urology.

[4]  William Pavlicek,et al.  Abdominal CT: comparison of low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  William H. Judy,et al.  The Measurement, Reporting, and Management of Radiation Dose in CT , 2008 .

[6]  Anne Catrine Trægde Martinsen,et al.  Iterative reconstruction reduces abdominal CT dose. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[7]  Alvin C. Silva,et al.  Reducing the radiation dose for CT colonography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: A pilot study. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  E. Halpern,et al.  CT of colon cancer metastases to the liver using modified RECIST criteria: determining the ideal number of target lesions to measure. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  D. Brenner,et al.  Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. , 2008, The British journal of radiology.

[10]  Jacques Felblinger,et al.  CT image quality improvement using adaptive iterative dose reduction with wide-volume acquisition on 320-detector CT , 2012, European Radiology.

[11]  M. Okada,et al.  [New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours-revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)]. , 2009, Gan to kagaku ryoho. Cancer & chemotherapy.

[12]  Laurence Parker,et al.  The recent downturn in utilization of CT: the start of a new trend? , 2012, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[13]  David H. Kim,et al.  Abdominal CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging. , 2012, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  P. Mittal,et al.  Changing Abdominal Imaging Utilization Patterns: Perspectives From Medicare Beneficiaries Over Two Decades. , 2016, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[15]  Jiang Hsieh,et al.  Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. , 2010, Radiology.

[16]  David H. Kim,et al.  Sub-milliSievert (sub-mSv) CT colonography: a prospective comparison of image quality and polyp conspicuity at reduced-dose versus standard-dose imaging , 2015, European Radiology.

[17]  D. Sahani,et al.  Iterative Reconstruction Techniques in Abdominopelvic CT: Technical Concepts and Clinical Implementation. , 2015, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  E. Paulson,et al.  Low dose computerized tomography for detection of urolithiasis--its effectiveness in the setting of the urology clinic. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[19]  Armando Manduca,et al.  Observer Performance in the Detection and Classification of Malignant Hepatic Nodules and Masses with CT Image-Space Denoising and Iterative Reconstruction. , 2015, Radiology.

[20]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[21]  Noise-reducing algorithms do not necessarily provide superior dose optimisation for hepatic lesion detection with multidetector CT. , 2013, The British journal of radiology.

[22]  M. Körner,et al.  Filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and a model-based iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT: an experimental clinical study. , 2013, Radiology.

[23]  D. Sahani,et al.  Reducing Abdominal CT Radiation Dose With Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction Technique , 2010, Investigative radiology.

[24]  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.

[25]  D. Volders,et al.  Model-based iterative reconstruction and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominal CT: comparison of image quality in the detection of colorectal liver metastases. , 2013, Radiology.

[26]  J. Hanley,et al.  Statistical Approaches to the Analysis of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curves , 1984, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[27]  S. Park,et al.  A prospective comparison of standard-dose CT enterography and 50% reduced-dose CT enterography with and without noise reduction for evaluating Crohn disease. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[28]  W. Kalender,et al.  Multisection CT protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. , 2010, Radiology.

[29]  Patrik Rogalla,et al.  Iterative reconstruction algorithm for CT: can radiation dose be decreased while low-contrast detectability is preserved? , 2013, Radiology.