ISSN: 1899-0967
Polish Journal of Radiology
Established by prof. Zygmunt Grudziński in 1926 Sun
Current issue Archive About the journal Editorial board Abstracting and indexing Contact Instructions for authors
SCImago Journal & Country Rank



2019
vol. 84
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
abstract:
Original paper

Assessment and comparison of radiation dose and image quality in multi-detector CT scanners in non-contrast head and neck examinations

Daryoush Khoramian, Soroush Sistani, Razzagh Abedi Firouzjah

© Pol J Radiol 2019; 84: e61-e67
Online publish date: 2019/01/23
View full text
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
Purpose
To assess and compare radiation dose and image quality from non-contrast head and neck computed tomo­graphy (CT) examinations from four different multi-detector CT (MDCT) scanners.

Material and methods
Four CT scanners with different numbers of detector rows including one 4-MDCT, a 6-MDCT, a 16-MDCT, and a 64-MDCT were investigated. Common CT dose descriptors including volumetric CT dose index (CTDIv), dose length product (DLP), and the effective dose (ED), and image quality parameters include image noise, uniformity, and spatial resolution (SR) were estimated for each CT scanner with standard tools and methods. To have a precise comparison between CT scanners and related doses and image quality parameters, the ImPACT Q-factor was used.

Results
Minimum and maximum CTDIv, DLP, and ED in the head scan were 18 ± 3 and 49 ± 4 mGy, 242 ± 28 and 692 ± 173 mGy × cm, 0.46 ± 0.4 and 1.31 ± 0.33 mSv for 16-MDCT and 64-MDCT, respectively. And 16 ± 2 to 27 ± 3, 286 ± 127 to 645 ± 79 and 1.46 ± 0.65 to 3.29 ± 0.40 for neck scan, respectively. The Q-factor in head scan was 2.4, 3.3, 4.4 and 5.6 for 4-MDCT, 6-MDCT, 16-MDCT and 64-MDCT, respectively. The Q-factor in neck scan was 3.4, 4.6, 4.7 and 6.0 for 4-MDCT, 6-MDCT, 16-MDCT and 64-MDCT, respectively.

Conclusions
The results clearly indicate an increasing trend in the Q-factor from 4-MDCT to 64-MDCT units in both head and neck examinations. This increasing trend is due to a better SR and less noise of images taken and/or fewer doses in 64-MDCT.

keywords:

computed tomography, multi-detector CT (MDCT), medical radiation dose, image quality

references:
McCollough C, Cody D, Edyvean S, et al. The measurement, reporting, and management of radiation dose in CT. Report of AAPM Task Group 2008; 23.
McLean I. Status of computed tomography dosimetry for wide cone beam scanners. International Atomic Energy Agency 2011.
Christner JA, Kofler JM, McCollough CH. Estimating effective dose for CT using dose-length product compared with using organ doses: consequences of adopting International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 103 or dual-energy scanning. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 881-889.
Cody DD, Kim H-J, Cagnon CH, et al. Normalized CT dose index of the CT scanners used in the National Lung Screening Trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 1539-1546.
McCollough C, Branham T, Herlihy V, et al. Diagnostic reference levels from the ACR CT accreditation program. J Am Coll Radiol 2011; 8: 795-803.
Shrimpton P, Hillier M, Lewis M, Dunn M. National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003. Br J Radiol 2006; 79: 968-980.
Khoramian D, Hashemi B. Effective and organ doses from common CT examinations in one general hospital in Tehran, Iran. Pol J Med Phys Eng 2017; 23: 73-79.
Van der Molen A, Schilham A, Stoop P, et al. A national survey on radiation dose in CT in The Netherlands. Insights Imaging 2013; 4: 383-390.
Hall E, Brenner D. Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Br J Radiol 2008; 81: 362-378.
Palorini F, Origgi D, Granata C, et al. Adult exposures from MDCT including multiphase studies: first Italian nationwide survey. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 469-483.
Mulkens T, Salgado R, Bellinck P. Dose Optimization and Reduction in CT of the Brain and Head and Neck Region. In: Tack D, Kalra MK, Gevenois PA (eds.). Radiation Dose from Multidetector CT. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 2011; 281-306.
Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169: 2078-2086.
Newman B, Ganguly A, Kim JE, et al. Comparison of different methods of calculating CT radiation effective dose in children. Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199: W232-W239.
Kalender WA. Dose in x-ray computed tomography. Phy Med Biol 2014; 59: R129-R150.
Brady Z, Ramanauskas F, Cain T, et al. Assessment of paediatric CT dose indicators for the purpose of optimisation. British J Radiol 2012; 85: 1488-1498.
Valentin J. The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Elsevier, Oxford 2007.
Langner S. Optimized imaging of the midface and orbits. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015; 14.
Pantos I, Thalassinou S, Argentos S, et al. Adult patient radiation doses from non-cardiac CT examinations: a review of published results. Br J Radiol 2011; 84: 293-303.
Platten D, Lewis M, Edyvean S. Sixteen Slice CT scanner comparison report version 13 – ImPACT. NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency 2005.
Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA. Multisection CT protocols: sex-and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology 2010; 257: 158-166.
Nersissian D, Xavier C, Saito R, Silva M (eds.). Comparison of clinical protocols of multi-slice CT systems. World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, September 7-12, 2009, Munich, Germany. Springer 2009.
Gulliksrud K, Stokke C, Martinsen ACT. How to measure CT image quality: Variations in CT-numbers, uniformity and low contrast resolution for a CT quality assurance phantom. Phys Med 2014; 30: 521-526.
Joseph N. Quality Assurance and the Helical (Spiral) Scanner. Online Radiography Continuing Education for Radiologic X ray Technologist. Available at: http://www.ceessentials.net/article33.html. 2019.
Ay MR, Mehranian A, Maleki A, et al. Experimental assessment of the influence of beam hardening filters on image quality and patient dose in volumetric 64-slice X-ray CT scanners. Phys Med 2013; 29: 249-260.
Ngaile JE, Msaki PK. Estimation of patient organ doses from CT examinations in Tanzania. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2006; 7: 80-94.
Parsi M, Sohrabi M, Mianji F, Paydar R. Determination of examination-specific diagnostic reference level in computed tomography by a new quality control-based dose survey method. Health Phys 2018; 114: 273-281.
Sohrabi M, Parsi M, Mianji F. Determination of national diagnostic reference levels in computed tomography examinations of Iran by a new quality control-based dose survey method. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2017; 179: 206-215.
 
Quick links
© 2019 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe