Computed Tomography of the Head : A Systematic Review on Acquisition and Reconstruction Techniques to Reduce Radiation Dose.

In 1971, the first computed tomography (CT) scan was performed on a patient's brain. Clinical CT systems were introduced in 1974 and dedicated to head imaging only. New technological developments, broader availability, and the clinical success of CT led to a steady growth in examination numbers. Most frequent indications for non-contrast CT (NCCT) of the head include the assessment of ischemia and stroke, intracranial hemorrhage and trauma, while CT angiography (CTA) has become the standard for first-line cerebrovascular evaluation; however, resulting improvements in patient management and clinical outcomes come at the cost of radiation exposure, increasing the risk for secondary morbidity. Therefore, radiation dose optimization should always be part of technical advancements in CT imaging but how can the dose be optimized? What dose reduction can be achieved without compromising diagnostic value, and what is the potential of the upcoming technologies artificial intelligence and photon counting CT? In this article, we look for answers to these questions by reviewing dose reduction techniques with respect to the major clinical indications of NCCT and CTA of the head, including a brief perspective on what to expect from current and future developments in CT technology with respect to radiation dose optimization.

Impact of radiation dose reduction and iterative image reconstruction on CT-guided spine biopsies.

This study aimed to systematically evaluate the impact of dose reduction on image quality and confidence for intervention planning and guidance regarding computed tomography (CT)-based intervertebral disc and vertebral body biopsies. We retrospectively analyzed 96 patients who underwent multi-detector CT (MDCT) acquired for the purpose of biopsies, which were either derived from scanning with standard dose (SD) or low dose (LD; using tube current reduction). The SD cases were matched to LD cases considering sex, age, level of biopsy, presence of spinal instrumentation, and body diameter. All images for planning (reconstruction: "IMR1") and periprocedural guidance (reconstruction: "iDose4") were evaluated by two readers (R1 and R2) using Likert scales. Image noise was measured using attenuation values of paraspinal muscle tissue. The dose length product (DLP) was statistically significantly lower for LD scans regarding the planning scans (SD: 13.8 ± 8.2 mGy*cm, LD: 8.1 ± 4.4 mGy*cm, p < 0.01) and the interventional guidance scans (SD: 43.0 ± 48.8 mGy*cm, LD: 18.4 ± 7.3 mGy*cm, p < 0.01). Image quality, contrast, determination of the target structure, and confidence for planning or intervention guidance were rated good to perfect for SD and LD scans, showing no statistically significant differences between SD and LD scans (p > 0.05). Image noise was similar between SD and LD scans performed for planning of the interventional procedures (SD: 14.62 ± 2.83 HU vs. LD: 15.45 ± 3.22 HU, p = 0.24). Use of a LD protocol for MDCT-guided biopsies along the spine is a practical alternative, maintaining overall image quality and confidence. Increasing availability of model-based iterative reconstruction in clinical routine may facilitate further radiation dose reductions.

Computed Tomography of the Spine : Systematic Review on Acquisition and Reconstruction Techniques to Reduce Radiation Dose.

The introduction of the first whole-body CT scanner in 1974 marked the beginning of cross-sectional spine imaging. In the last decades, the technological advancement, increasing availability and clinical success of CT led to a rapidly growing number of CT examinations, also of the spine. After initially being primarily used for trauma evaluation, new indications continued to emerge, such as assessment of vertebral fractures or degenerative spine disease, preoperative and postoperative evaluation, or CT-guided interventions at the spine; however, improvements in patient management and clinical outcomes come along with higher radiation exposure, which increases the risk for secondary malignancies. Therefore, technical developments in CT acquisition and reconstruction must always include efforts to reduce the radiation dose. But how exactly can the dose be reduced? What amount of dose reduction can be achieved without compromising the clinical value of spinal CT examinations and what can be expected from the rising stars in CT technology: artificial intelligence and photon counting CT? In this article, we try to answer these questions by systematically reviewing dose reduction techniques with respect to the major clinical indications of spinal CT. Furthermore, we take a concise look on the dose reduction potential of future developments in CT hardware and software.

Low-dose multi-detector computed tomography for periradicular infiltrations at the cervical and lumbar spine.

Periradicular infiltrations are frequently performed in daily neuroradiological routine and are often guided by multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT), thus leading to radiation exposure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate MDCT with low dose (LD) and model-based iterative reconstruction for image-guided periradicular infiltrations at the cervical and lumbosacral spine. We retrospectively analyzed 204 MDCT scans acquired for the purpose of cervical or lumbosacral periradicular interventions, which were either derived from scanning with standard dose (SD; 40 mA and 120 kVp) or LD (20-30 mA and 120 kVp) using a 128-slice MDCT scanner. The SD cases were matched to the LD cases considering sex, age, level of infiltration, presence of spinal instrumentation, and body diameter. All images were reconstructed using model-based iterative image reconstruction and were evaluated by two readers (R1 and R2) using 5- or 3-point Likert scales (score of 1 reflects the best value per category). Furthermore, noise in imaging data was quantitatively measured by the standard deviation (StDev) of muscle tissue. The dose length product (DLP) was statistically significantly lower for LD scans (6.75 ± 6.43 mGy*cm vs. 10.16 ± 7.70 mGy*cm; p < 0.01; reduction of 33.5%). Image noise was comparable between LD and SD scans (13.13 ± 3.66 HU vs. 13.37 ± 4.08 HU; p = 0.85). Overall image quality was scored as good to very good with only minimal artifacts according to both readers, and determination of the nerve root was possible in almost all patients (LD vs. SD: p > 0.05 for all items). This resulted in high confidence for intervention planning as well as periprocedural intervention guidance for both SD and LD scans. The inter-reader agreement was at least substantial (weighted Cohen's κ ≥ 0.62), except for confidence in intervention planning for LD scans (κ = 0.49). In conclusion, considerable dose reduction for planning and performing periradicular infiltrations with MDCT using model-based iterative image reconstruction is feasible and can be performed without clinically relevant drawbacks regarding image quality or confidence for planning.

Impact of dose reduction and iterative model reconstruction on multi-detector CT imaging of the brain in patients with suspected ischemic stroke.

Non-contrast cerebral computed tomography (CT) is frequently performed as a first-line diagnostic approach in patients with suspected ischemic stroke. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of hybrid and model-based iterative image reconstruction for standard-dose (SD) and low-dose (LD) non-contrast cerebral imaging by multi-detector CT (MDCT). We retrospectively analyzed 131 patients with suspected ischemic stroke (mean age: 74.2 ± 14.3 years, 67 females) who underwent initial MDCT with a SD protocol (300 mAs) as well as follow-up MDCT after a maximum of 10 days with a LD protocol (200 mAs). Ischemic demarcation was detected in 26 patients for initial and in 64 patients for follow-up imaging, with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) confirming ischemia in all of those patients. The non-contrast cerebral MDCT images were reconstructed using hybrid (Philips "iDose4") and model-based iterative (Philips "IMR3") reconstruction algorithms. Two readers assessed overall image quality, anatomic detail, differentiation of gray matter (GM)/white matter (WM), and conspicuity of ischemic demarcation, if any. Quantitative assessment included signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) calculations for WM, GM, and demarcated areas. Ischemic demarcation was detected in all MDCT images of affected patients by both readers, irrespective of the reconstruction method used. For LD imaging, anatomic detail and GM/WM differentiation was significantly better when using the model-based iterative compared to the hybrid reconstruction method. Furthermore, CNR of GM/WM as well as the SNR of WM and GM of healthy brain tissue were significantly higher for LD images with model-based iterative reconstruction when compared to SD or LD images reconstructed with the hybrid algorithm. For patients with ischemic demarcation, there was a significant difference between images using hybrid versus model-based iterative reconstruction for CNR of ischemic/contralateral unaffected areas (mean ± standard deviation: SD_IMR: 4.4 ± 3.1, SD_iDose: 3.5 ± 2.3, P < 0.0001; LD_IMR: 4.6 ± 2.9, LD_iDose: 3.2 ± 2.1, P < 0.0001).  In conclusion, model-based iterative reconstruction provides higher CNR and SNR without significant loss of image quality for non-enhanced cerebral MDCT.