Estimation and comparison of effective dose (E) in standard chest CT by organ dose measurements and dose-length-product methods and assessment of the influence of CT tube potential (energy dependency) on effective dose in a dual-source CT.

PURPOSE: To determine effective dose (E) during standard chest CT using an organ dose-based and a dose-length-product-based (DLP) approach for four different scan protocols including high-pitch and dual-energy in a dual-source CT scanner of the second generation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Organ doses were measured with thermo luminescence dosimeters (TLD) in an anthropomorphic male adult phantom. Further, DLP-based dose estimates were performed by using the standard 0.014mSv/mGycm conversion coefficient k. Examinations were performed on a dual-source CT system (Somatom Definition Flash, Siemens). Four scan protocols were investigated: (1) single-source 120kV, (2) single-source 100kV, (3) high-pitch 120kV, and (4) dual-energy with 100/Sn140kV with equivalent CTDIvol and no automated tube current modulation. E was then determined following recommendations of ICRP publication 103 and 60 and specific k values were derived. RESULTS: DLP-based estimates differed by 4.5-16.56% and 5.2-15.8% relatively to ICRP 60 and 103, respectively. The derived k factors calculated from TLD measurements were 0.0148, 0.015, 0.0166, and 0.0148 for protocol 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Effective dose estimations by ICRP 103 and 60 for single-energy and dual-energy protocols show a difference of less than 0.04mSv. CONCLUSION: Estimates of E based on DLP work equally well for single-energy, high-pitch and dual-energy CT examinations. The tube potential definitely affects effective dose in a substantial way. Effective dose estimations by ICRP 103 and 60 for both single-energy and dual-energy examinations differ not more than 0.04mSv.

Effect of contrast material on image noise and radiation dose in adult chest computed tomography using automatic exposure control: a comparative study between 16-, 64- and 128-slice CT.

PURPOSE: To determine the difference in radiation dose between non-enhanced (NECT) and contrast-enhanced (CECT) chest CT examinations contributed by contrast material with different scanner generations with automatic exposure control (AEC). METHODS & MATERIALS: Each 42 adult patients received a NECT and CECT of the chest in one session on a 16-, 64- or 128-slice CT scanner with the same scan protocol settings. However, AEC technology (Care Dose 4D, Siemens) underwent upgrades in each of the three scanner generations. DLP, CTDIvol and image noise were compared. RESULTS: Although absolute differences in image noise were very small and ranged between 10 and 13 HU for NECT and CECT in median, the differences in image noise and dose (DLP: 16-slice:+2.8%; 64-slice:+3.9%; 128-slice:+5.6%) between NECT and CECT were statistically significant in all groups. Image noise and dose parameters were significantly lower in the most recent 128-slice CT generation for both NECT and CECT (DLP: 16-slice:+35.5-39.2%; 64-slice:+6.8-8.5%). CONCLUSION: The presence of contrast material lead to an increase in dose for chest examinations in three CT generations with AEC. Although image noise values were significantly higher for CECT, the absolute differences were in a range of 3 HU. This can be regarded as negligible, thus indicating that AEC is able to fulfill its purpose of maintaining image quality. However, technological developments lead to a significant reduction of dose and image noise with the latest CT generation.

Image fusion in dual energy computed tomography for detection of various anatomic structures--effect on contrast enhancement, contrast-to-noise ratio, signal-to-noise ratio and image quality.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate image fusion in dual energy computed tomography for detecting various anatomic structures based on the effect on contrast enhancement, contrast-to-noise ratio, signal-to-noise ratio and image quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty patients underwent a CT neck with dual energy mode (DECT under a Somatom Definition flash Dual Source CT scanner (Siemens, Forchheim, Germany)). Tube voltage: 80-kV and Sn140-kV; tube current: 110 and 290 mAs; collimation-2×32×0.6 mm. Raw data were reconstructed using a soft convolution kernel (D30f). Fused images were calculated using a spectrum of weighting factors (0.0, 0.3, 0.6 0.8 and 1.0) generating different ratios between the 80- and Sn140-kV images (e.g. factor 0.6 corresponds to 60% of their information from the 80-kV image, and 40% from the Sn140-kV image). CT values and SNRs measured in the ascending aorta, thyroid gland, fat, muscle, CSF, spinal cord, bone marrow and brain. In addition, CNR values calculated for aorta, thyroid, muscle and brain. Subjective image quality evaluated using a 5-point grading scale. Results compared using paired t-tests and nonparametric-paired Wilcoxon-Wilcox-test. RESULTS: Statistically significant increases in mean CT values noted in anatomic structures when increasing weighting factors used (all P≤0.001). For example, mean CT values derived from the contrast enhanced aorta were 149.2±12.8 Hounsfield Units (HU), 204.8±14.4 HU, 267.5±18.6 HU, 311.9±22.3 HU, 347.3±24.7 HU, when the weighting factors 0.0, 0.3, 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0 were used. The highest SNR and CNR values were found in materials when the weighting factor 0.6 used. The difference CNR between the weighting factors 0.6 and 0.3 was statistically significant in the contrast enhanced aorta and thyroid gland (P=0.012 and P=0.016, respectively). Visual image assessment for image quality showed the highest score for the data reconstructed using the weighting factor 0.6. CONCLUSION: Different fusion factors used to create images in DECT cause statistically significant differences in CT value, SNR, CNR and image quality. Best results obtained using the weighting factor 0.6 for all anatomic structures used in this study.