Cargando…

CT protocol management: simplifying the process by using a master protocol concept

This article explains a method for creating CT protocols for a wide range of patient body sizes and clinical indications, using detailed tube current information from a small set of commonly used protocols. Analytical expressions were created relating CT technical acquisition parameters which can be...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Szczykutowicz, Timothy P., Bour, Robert K., Rubert, Nicholas, Wendt, Gary, Pozniak, Myron, Ranallo, Frank N.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690004/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26219005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i4.5412
_version_ 1783279507313000448
author Szczykutowicz, Timothy P.
Bour, Robert K.
Rubert, Nicholas
Wendt, Gary
Pozniak, Myron
Ranallo, Frank N.
author_facet Szczykutowicz, Timothy P.
Bour, Robert K.
Rubert, Nicholas
Wendt, Gary
Pozniak, Myron
Ranallo, Frank N.
author_sort Szczykutowicz, Timothy P.
collection PubMed
description This article explains a method for creating CT protocols for a wide range of patient body sizes and clinical indications, using detailed tube current information from a small set of commonly used protocols. Analytical expressions were created relating CT technical acquisition parameters which can be used to create new CT protocols on a given scanner or customize protocols from one scanner to another. Plots of mA as a function of patient size for specific anatomical regions were generated and used to identify the tube output needs for patients as a function of size for a single master protocol. Tube output data were obtained from the DICOM header of clinical images from our PACS and patient size was measured from CT localizer radiographs under IRB approval. This master protocol was then used to create 11 additional master protocols. The 12 master protocols were further combined to create 39 single and multiphase clinical protocols. Radiologist acceptance rate of exams scanned using the clinical protocols was monitored for 12,857 patients to analyze the effectiveness of the presented protocol management methods using a two‐tailed Fisher's exact test. A single routine adult abdominal protocol was used as the master protocol to create 11 additional master abdominal protocols of varying dose and beam energy. Situations in which the maximum tube current would have been exceeded are presented, and the trade‐offs between increasing the effective tube output via 1) decreasing pitch, 2) increasing the scan time, or 3) increasing the kV are discussed. Out of 12 master protocols customized across three different scanners, only one had a statistically significant acceptance rate that differed from the scanner it was customized from. The difference, however, was only 1% and was judged to be negligible. All other master protocols differed in acceptance rate insignificantly between scanners. The methodology described in this paper allows a small set of master protocols to be adapted among different clinical indications on a single scanner and among different CT scanners. PACS number: 87.57.Q
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5690004
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56900042018-04-02 CT protocol management: simplifying the process by using a master protocol concept Szczykutowicz, Timothy P. Bour, Robert K. Rubert, Nicholas Wendt, Gary Pozniak, Myron Ranallo, Frank N. J Appl Clin Med Phys Medical Imaging This article explains a method for creating CT protocols for a wide range of patient body sizes and clinical indications, using detailed tube current information from a small set of commonly used protocols. Analytical expressions were created relating CT technical acquisition parameters which can be used to create new CT protocols on a given scanner or customize protocols from one scanner to another. Plots of mA as a function of patient size for specific anatomical regions were generated and used to identify the tube output needs for patients as a function of size for a single master protocol. Tube output data were obtained from the DICOM header of clinical images from our PACS and patient size was measured from CT localizer radiographs under IRB approval. This master protocol was then used to create 11 additional master protocols. The 12 master protocols were further combined to create 39 single and multiphase clinical protocols. Radiologist acceptance rate of exams scanned using the clinical protocols was monitored for 12,857 patients to analyze the effectiveness of the presented protocol management methods using a two‐tailed Fisher's exact test. A single routine adult abdominal protocol was used as the master protocol to create 11 additional master abdominal protocols of varying dose and beam energy. Situations in which the maximum tube current would have been exceeded are presented, and the trade‐offs between increasing the effective tube output via 1) decreasing pitch, 2) increasing the scan time, or 3) increasing the kV are discussed. Out of 12 master protocols customized across three different scanners, only one had a statistically significant acceptance rate that differed from the scanner it was customized from. The difference, however, was only 1% and was judged to be negligible. All other master protocols differed in acceptance rate insignificantly between scanners. The methodology described in this paper allows a small set of master protocols to be adapted among different clinical indications on a single scanner and among different CT scanners. PACS number: 87.57.Q John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5690004/ /pubmed/26219005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i4.5412 Text en © 2015 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Medical Imaging
Szczykutowicz, Timothy P.
Bour, Robert K.
Rubert, Nicholas
Wendt, Gary
Pozniak, Myron
Ranallo, Frank N.
CT protocol management: simplifying the process by using a master protocol concept
title CT protocol management: simplifying the process by using a master protocol concept
title_full CT protocol management: simplifying the process by using a master protocol concept
title_fullStr CT protocol management: simplifying the process by using a master protocol concept
title_full_unstemmed CT protocol management: simplifying the process by using a master protocol concept
title_short CT protocol management: simplifying the process by using a master protocol concept
title_sort ct protocol management: simplifying the process by using a master protocol concept
topic Medical Imaging
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690004/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26219005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i4.5412
work_keys_str_mv AT szczykutowicztimothyp ctprotocolmanagementsimplifyingtheprocessbyusingamasterprotocolconcept
AT bourrobertk ctprotocolmanagementsimplifyingtheprocessbyusingamasterprotocolconcept
AT rubertnicholas ctprotocolmanagementsimplifyingtheprocessbyusingamasterprotocolconcept
AT wendtgary ctprotocolmanagementsimplifyingtheprocessbyusingamasterprotocolconcept
AT pozniakmyron ctprotocolmanagementsimplifyingtheprocessbyusingamasterprotocolconcept
AT ranallofrankn ctprotocolmanagementsimplifyingtheprocessbyusingamasterprotocolconcept