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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |