Cargando…

Image Quality and Patient-Specific Organ Doses in Stone Protocol CT: A Comparison of Traditional CT to Low Dose CT with Iterative Reconstruction

OBJECTIVE: To compare organ specific radiation dose and image quality in kidney stone patients scanned with standard CT reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP-CT) to those scanned with low dose CT reconstructed with iterative techniques (IR-CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a one-year study...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pai, Raghav, Modh, Rishi, Lamoureux, Rebecca H., Deitte, Lori, Wymer, David C., Mench, Anna, Lipnharski, Izabella, Henriksen, Carl, Arreola, Manuel, Canales, Benjamin K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6181004/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30363655
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/5120974
_version_ 1783362330734624768
author Pai, Raghav
Modh, Rishi
Lamoureux, Rebecca H.
Deitte, Lori
Wymer, David C.
Mench, Anna
Lipnharski, Izabella
Henriksen, Carl
Arreola, Manuel
Canales, Benjamin K.
author_facet Pai, Raghav
Modh, Rishi
Lamoureux, Rebecca H.
Deitte, Lori
Wymer, David C.
Mench, Anna
Lipnharski, Izabella
Henriksen, Carl
Arreola, Manuel
Canales, Benjamin K.
author_sort Pai, Raghav
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare organ specific radiation dose and image quality in kidney stone patients scanned with standard CT reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP-CT) to those scanned with low dose CT reconstructed with iterative techniques (IR-CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a one-year study period, adult kidney stone patients were retrospectively netted to capture the use of noncontrasted, stone protocol CT in one of six institutional scanners (four FBP and two IR). To limit potential CT-unit use bias, scans were included only from days when all six scanners were functioning. Organ dose was calculated using volumetric CT dose index and patient effective body diameter through validated conversion equations derived from previous cadaveric, dosimetry studies. Board-certified radiologists, blinded to CT algorithm type, assessed stone characteristics, study noise, and image quality of both techniques. RESULTS: FBP-CT (n=250) and IR-CT (n=90) groups were similar in regard to gender, race, body mass index (mean BMI = 30.3), and stone burden detected (mean size 5.4 ± 1.2 mm). Mean organ-specific dose (OSD) was 54-62% lower across all organs for IR-CT compared to FBP-CT with particularly reduced doses (up to 4.6-fold) noted in patients with normal BMI range. No differences were noted in radiological assessment of image quality or noise between the cohorts, and intrarater agreement was highly correlated for noise (AC2=0.873) and quality (AC2=0.874) between blinded radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: Image quality and stone burden assessment were maintained between standard FBP and low dose IR groups, but IR-CT decreased mean OSD by 50%. Both urologists and radiologists should advocate for low dose CT, utilizing reconstructive protocols like IR, to reduce radiation exposure in their stone formers who undergo multiple CTs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6181004
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61810042018-10-24 Image Quality and Patient-Specific Organ Doses in Stone Protocol CT: A Comparison of Traditional CT to Low Dose CT with Iterative Reconstruction Pai, Raghav Modh, Rishi Lamoureux, Rebecca H. Deitte, Lori Wymer, David C. Mench, Anna Lipnharski, Izabella Henriksen, Carl Arreola, Manuel Canales, Benjamin K. Biomed Res Int Research Article OBJECTIVE: To compare organ specific radiation dose and image quality in kidney stone patients scanned with standard CT reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP-CT) to those scanned with low dose CT reconstructed with iterative techniques (IR-CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a one-year study period, adult kidney stone patients were retrospectively netted to capture the use of noncontrasted, stone protocol CT in one of six institutional scanners (four FBP and two IR). To limit potential CT-unit use bias, scans were included only from days when all six scanners were functioning. Organ dose was calculated using volumetric CT dose index and patient effective body diameter through validated conversion equations derived from previous cadaveric, dosimetry studies. Board-certified radiologists, blinded to CT algorithm type, assessed stone characteristics, study noise, and image quality of both techniques. RESULTS: FBP-CT (n=250) and IR-CT (n=90) groups were similar in regard to gender, race, body mass index (mean BMI = 30.3), and stone burden detected (mean size 5.4 ± 1.2 mm). Mean organ-specific dose (OSD) was 54-62% lower across all organs for IR-CT compared to FBP-CT with particularly reduced doses (up to 4.6-fold) noted in patients with normal BMI range. No differences were noted in radiological assessment of image quality or noise between the cohorts, and intrarater agreement was highly correlated for noise (AC2=0.873) and quality (AC2=0.874) between blinded radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: Image quality and stone burden assessment were maintained between standard FBP and low dose IR groups, but IR-CT decreased mean OSD by 50%. Both urologists and radiologists should advocate for low dose CT, utilizing reconstructive protocols like IR, to reduce radiation exposure in their stone formers who undergo multiple CTs. Hindawi 2018-09-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6181004/ /pubmed/30363655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/5120974 Text en Copyright © 2018 Raghav Pai et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Pai, Raghav
Modh, Rishi
Lamoureux, Rebecca H.
Deitte, Lori
Wymer, David C.
Mench, Anna
Lipnharski, Izabella
Henriksen, Carl
Arreola, Manuel
Canales, Benjamin K.
Image Quality and Patient-Specific Organ Doses in Stone Protocol CT: A Comparison of Traditional CT to Low Dose CT with Iterative Reconstruction
title Image Quality and Patient-Specific Organ Doses in Stone Protocol CT: A Comparison of Traditional CT to Low Dose CT with Iterative Reconstruction
title_full Image Quality and Patient-Specific Organ Doses in Stone Protocol CT: A Comparison of Traditional CT to Low Dose CT with Iterative Reconstruction
title_fullStr Image Quality and Patient-Specific Organ Doses in Stone Protocol CT: A Comparison of Traditional CT to Low Dose CT with Iterative Reconstruction
title_full_unstemmed Image Quality and Patient-Specific Organ Doses in Stone Protocol CT: A Comparison of Traditional CT to Low Dose CT with Iterative Reconstruction
title_short Image Quality and Patient-Specific Organ Doses in Stone Protocol CT: A Comparison of Traditional CT to Low Dose CT with Iterative Reconstruction
title_sort image quality and patient-specific organ doses in stone protocol ct: a comparison of traditional ct to low dose ct with iterative reconstruction
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6181004/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30363655
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/5120974
work_keys_str_mv AT pairaghav imagequalityandpatientspecificorgandosesinstoneprotocolctacomparisonoftraditionalcttolowdosectwithiterativereconstruction
AT modhrishi imagequalityandpatientspecificorgandosesinstoneprotocolctacomparisonoftraditionalcttolowdosectwithiterativereconstruction
AT lamoureuxrebeccah imagequalityandpatientspecificorgandosesinstoneprotocolctacomparisonoftraditionalcttolowdosectwithiterativereconstruction
AT deittelori imagequalityandpatientspecificorgandosesinstoneprotocolctacomparisonoftraditionalcttolowdosectwithiterativereconstruction
AT wymerdavidc imagequalityandpatientspecificorgandosesinstoneprotocolctacomparisonoftraditionalcttolowdosectwithiterativereconstruction
AT menchanna imagequalityandpatientspecificorgandosesinstoneprotocolctacomparisonoftraditionalcttolowdosectwithiterativereconstruction
AT lipnharskiizabella imagequalityandpatientspecificorgandosesinstoneprotocolctacomparisonoftraditionalcttolowdosectwithiterativereconstruction
AT henriksencarl imagequalityandpatientspecificorgandosesinstoneprotocolctacomparisonoftraditionalcttolowdosectwithiterativereconstruction
AT arreolamanuel imagequalityandpatientspecificorgandosesinstoneprotocolctacomparisonoftraditionalcttolowdosectwithiterativereconstruction
AT canalesbenjamink imagequalityandpatientspecificorgandosesinstoneprotocolctacomparisonoftraditionalcttolowdosectwithiterativereconstruction