Detection of Colorectal Hepatic Metastases Is Superior at Standard Radiation Dose CT versus Reduced Dose CT.

Purpose To evaluate colorectal cancer hepatic metastasis detection and characterization between reduced radiation dose (RD) and standard dose (SD) contrast material-enhanced CT of the abdomen and to qualitatively compare between filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction algorithms. Materials and Methods In this prospective study (from May 2017 through November 2017), 52 adults with biopsy-proven colorectal cancer and suspected hepatic metastases at baseline CT underwent two portal venous phase CT scans: SD and RD in the same breath hold. Three radiologists, blinded to examination details, performed detection and characterization of 2-15-mm lesions on the SD FBP and RD adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR)-V 60% series images. Readers assessed overall image quality and lesions between SD FBP and seven different iterative reconstructions. Two nonblinded consensus reviewers established the reference standard using the picture archiving and communication system lesion marks of each reader, multiple comparison examinations, and clinical data. Results RD CT resulted in a mean dose reduction of 54% compared with SD. Of the 260 lesions (233 metastatic, 27 benign), 212 (82%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 76%, 86%) were detected with RD CT, whereas 252 (97%; 95% CI: 94%, 99%) were detected with SD (P < .001); per-lesion sensitivity was 79% (95% CI: 74%, 84%) and 94% (95% CI: 90%, 96%) (P < .001), respectively. Mean qualitative scores ranked SD images as higher quality than RD series images, and ASIR-V ranked higher than ASIR and Veo 3.0. Conclusion CT evaluation of colorectal liver metastases is compromised with modest radiation dose reduction, and the use of iterative reconstructions could not maintain observer performance. © RSNA, 2018.

[1]  Wei Wei,et al.  Third version of vendor-specific model-based iterativereconstruction (Veo 3.0): evaluation of CT image quality in the abdomen using new noise reduction presets and varied slice optimization. , 2017, The British journal of radiology.

[2]  J. Solomon,et al.  Characteristic image quality of a third generation dual-source MDCT scanner: Noise, resolution, and detectability. , 2015, Medical physics.

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

[4]  Kenneth Hess,et al.  Recurrence and Outcomes Following Hepatic Resection, Radiofrequency Ablation, and Combined Resection/Ablation for Colorectal Liver Metastases , 2004, Annals of surgery.

[5]  E. Fosse,et al.  Quantitative Measurements Versus Receiver Operating Characteristics and Visual Grading Regression in CT Images Reconstructed with Iterative Reconstruction: A Phantom Study. , 2017, Academic radiology.

[6]  A. Einstein,et al.  Impact of reduced patient life expectancy on potential cancer risks from radiologic imaging. , 2011, Radiology.

[7]  Michael A. Choti,et al.  Trends in Long-Term Survival Following Liver Resection for Hepatic Colorectal Metastases , 2002, Annals of surgery.

[8]  Nancy A Obuchowski,et al.  Effect of reduced radiation exposure and iterative reconstruction on detection of low-contrast low-attenuation lesions in an anthropomorphic liver phantom: an 18-reader study. , 2014, Radiology.

[9]  Samuel L Brady,et al.  Investigation of American Association of Physicists in Medicine Report 204 size-specific dose estimates for pediatric CT implementation. , 2012, Radiology.

[10]  Sebastian Feuerlein,et al.  New iterative reconstruction techniques for cardiovascular computed tomography: how do they work, and what are the advantages and disadvantages? , 2011, Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography.

[11]  H Alkadhi,et al.  Effect of automatic tube voltage selection on image quality and radiation dose in abdominal CT angiography of various body sizes: a phantom study. , 2013, Clinical radiology.

[12]  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.

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

[14]  R. Morin,et al.  U.S. Diagnostic Reference Levels and Achievable Doses for 10 Adult CT Examinations. , 2017, Radiology.

[15]  L. Schwartz,et al.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[16]  Armando Manduca,et al.  Methods for clinical evaluation of noise reduction techniques in abdominopelvic CT. , 2014, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[17]  E. Samei,et al.  Low-tube-voltage, high-tube-current multidetector abdominal CT: improved image quality and decreased radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm--initial clinical experience. , 2010, Radiology.

[18]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Effect of Radiation Dose Reduction and Reconstruction Algorithm on Image Noise, Contrast, Resolution, and Detectability of Subtle Hypoattenuating Liver Lesions at Multidetector CT: Filtered Back Projection versus a Commercial Model-based Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm. , 2017, Radiology.

[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]  Ke Li,et al.  Prospective Evaluation of Reduced Dose Computed Tomography for the Detection of Low-Contrast Liver Lesions: Direct Comparison with Concurrent Standard Dose Imaging , 2017, European Radiology.

[21]  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.

[22]  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.

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

[24]  Heejin Kwon,et al.  The Detection of Focal Liver Lesions Using Abdominal CT: A Comparison of Image Quality Between Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction V and Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction. , 2016, Academic radiology.

[25]  Heejin Kwon,et al.  The adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V technique for radiation dose reduction in abdominal CT: comparison with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. , 2015, The British journal of radiology.

[26]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Assessment of volumetric noise and resolution performance for linear and nonlinear CT reconstruction methods. , 2014, Medical physics.

[27]  W J H Veldkamp,et al.  Automated assessment of low contrast sensitivity for CT systems using a model observer. , 2011, Medical physics.

[28]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Evaluating iterative reconstruction performance in computed tomography. , 2014, Medical physics.