ABSTRACT
Objective: Imaged scan length (z-axis coverage) is a simple parameter that can reduce CT dose without compromising image quality. In CT coronary angiography (CTCA), z-axis coverage may be planned using non-contrast calcium score scan (CaCS) to identify the relevant coronary anatomy. However, standardised Agatston CaCS is acquired at 120 kV which adds a relatively high contribution to total study dose and CaCS is no longer routinely recommended in UK guidelines. We evaluate an ultra-low dose unenhanced planning scan on CTCA scan length and effective radiation dose. Methods: An ultra-low dose tin filter (Sn-filter) planning scan (100 kVp, maximum iterative reconstruction) was performed and used to plan the z-axis coverage on 48 consecutive CTCAs (62% men, 62 ± 13 years) compared with 47 CTCA planned using a localiser alone (46% men, 59 ± 12 years) between May and June 2019. Excess scanning beyond the ideal scan length was calculated for both groups. Estimations of radiation dose were also compared between the two groups. Results: Addition of an ultra-low dose unenhanced planning scan to CTCA protocol was associated with reduction in overscanning with no impact on image quality. There was no significant difference in total study effective dose with the addition of the planning scan, which had an average dose-length product of 3 mGy.cm. (total study dose: Protocol A 2.1 mSv vs Protocol B 2.2 mSv, p = 0.92). Conclusion: An ultra-low dose unenhanced planning scan facilitates optimal scan length for the diagnostic CTCA, reducing overscanning and preventing incomplete cardiac imaging with no significant dose penalty or impact on image quality. Advances in knowledge: An ultra-low dose CTCA planning is feasible and effective at optimising scan length.
ABSTRACT
Bone scintigraphy is one of the most common nuclear medicine tests. Previous work investigated the effectiveness of an asymmetric window (ASW) for planar bone scintigraphy using simulation and phantom data. Phantom studies concluded that the ASW improved both the resolution and the contrast-to-noise ratio when imaging objects with high scatter. The aim of this study was to confirm this improvement increased image quality in patients. This study also investigated whether the differences between a symmetric window (SW) and an ASW depended on body mass index. Methods: Fifty-eight patients had 2 scans: a standard scan using an SW of 140 keV ± 10% and a scan using an ASW of 140 keV + 10% and - 7.5%. Three readers independently compared the 2 image sets and scored them using a 5-score scale (ranging from 1 = ASW better [clinically important] to 5 = SW better [clinically important]). Scores from all radiologists were pooled and analyzed statistically. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: In 93 cases (53%), the readers scored the ASW images better than the SW images. In 5 cases (3%), the ASW images were preferred, with the difference considered clinically important; there were no cases in which the SW was similarly preferred. For the sign test, we determined whether the total of 93 scores of 1 or 2 (ASW preferred) was significantly different from the 15 scores of 4 or 5 (SW preferred). The P value was less than 0.00001, demonstrating that the difference was significant. Conclusion: In patients undergoing bone scintigraphy, ASW provided an improvement in image quality that in some cases was judged clinically important.
