Cargando…
CT protocol optimisation in PET/CT: a systematic review
PURPOSE: Currently, no consistent guidelines for CT scans used within PET/CT examinations are available. This systematic review provides an up-to-date overview of studies to answer the following questions: What are the specific CT protocols used in PET/CT? What are the possible purposes of requiring...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7076098/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32180029 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40658-020-00287-x |
_version_ | 1783507155368804352 |
---|---|
author | Bertolini, V. Palmieri, A. Bassi, M. C. Bertolini, M. Trojani, V. Piccagli, V. Fioroni, F. Cavuto, S. Guberti, M. Versari, A. Cola, S. |
author_facet | Bertolini, V. Palmieri, A. Bassi, M. C. Bertolini, M. Trojani, V. Piccagli, V. Fioroni, F. Cavuto, S. Guberti, M. Versari, A. Cola, S. |
author_sort | Bertolini, V. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Currently, no consistent guidelines for CT scans used within PET/CT examinations are available. This systematic review provides an up-to-date overview of studies to answer the following questions: What are the specific CT protocols used in PET/CT? What are the possible purposes of requiring a CT study within a PET/CT scan? Is the CT protocol obtained from a dosimetric optimisation study? MATERIALS AND METHOD: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase and Scopus were systematically searched for relevant studies in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The literature search was conducted from January 2007 until June 2019. Data derived from studies were standardized in order to reduce possible biases, and they were divided into clinically homogeneous subgroups (adult, child or phantom). Subsequently, we divided the CT protocol intents into 3 types (anatomic localization only, attenuation correction only and diagnostic purpose). A narrative approach was used to summarise datasets and to investigate their heterogeneity (due to medical prescription methodology) and their combination in multiseries CT protocols. When weighted computed tomography dose index (CTDI(w)) was available, we calculated the volumetric computed tomography dose index (CTDI(vol)) using the pitch value to make the results uniform. Eventually, the correlation between protocol intents and CTDI(vol) values was obtained using a Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA statistical test. RESULT: Starting from a total of 1440 retrieved records, twenty-four studies were eligible for inclusion in addition to two large multicentric works that we used to compare the results. We analyzed 87 CT protocols. There was a considerable range of variation in the acquisition parameters: tube current–time product revealed to have the most variable range, which was 10–300 mAs for adults and 10–80 mAs for paediatric patients. Seventy percent of datasets presented scans acquired with tube current modulation, 9% used fixed tube current and in 21% of them, this information was not available. Dependence between mean CTDI(vol) values and protocol intent was statistically significant (p = 0.002). As expected, in diagnostic protocols, there was a statistically significant difference between CTDI(vol) values of with and without contrast acquisitions (11.68 mGy vs 7.99 mGy, p = 0.009). In 13 out of 87 studies, the optimisation aim was not reported; in 2 papers, a clinical protocol was used; and in 11 works, a dose optimisation protocol was applied. CONCLUSIONS: According to this review, the dose optimisation in PET/CT exams depends heavily on the correct implementation of the CT protocol. In addition to this, considering the latest technology advances (i.e. iterative algorithms development), we suggest a periodic quality control audit to stay updated on new clinical utility modalities and to achieve a shared standardisation of clinical protocols. In conclusion, this study pointed out the necessity to better identify the specific CT protocol use within PET/CT scans, taking into account the continuous development of new technologies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7076098 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70760982020-03-23 CT protocol optimisation in PET/CT: a systematic review Bertolini, V. Palmieri, A. Bassi, M. C. Bertolini, M. Trojani, V. Piccagli, V. Fioroni, F. Cavuto, S. Guberti, M. Versari, A. Cola, S. EJNMMI Phys Review PURPOSE: Currently, no consistent guidelines for CT scans used within PET/CT examinations are available. This systematic review provides an up-to-date overview of studies to answer the following questions: What are the specific CT protocols used in PET/CT? What are the possible purposes of requiring a CT study within a PET/CT scan? Is the CT protocol obtained from a dosimetric optimisation study? MATERIALS AND METHOD: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase and Scopus were systematically searched for relevant studies in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The literature search was conducted from January 2007 until June 2019. Data derived from studies were standardized in order to reduce possible biases, and they were divided into clinically homogeneous subgroups (adult, child or phantom). Subsequently, we divided the CT protocol intents into 3 types (anatomic localization only, attenuation correction only and diagnostic purpose). A narrative approach was used to summarise datasets and to investigate their heterogeneity (due to medical prescription methodology) and their combination in multiseries CT protocols. When weighted computed tomography dose index (CTDI(w)) was available, we calculated the volumetric computed tomography dose index (CTDI(vol)) using the pitch value to make the results uniform. Eventually, the correlation between protocol intents and CTDI(vol) values was obtained using a Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA statistical test. RESULT: Starting from a total of 1440 retrieved records, twenty-four studies were eligible for inclusion in addition to two large multicentric works that we used to compare the results. We analyzed 87 CT protocols. There was a considerable range of variation in the acquisition parameters: tube current–time product revealed to have the most variable range, which was 10–300 mAs for adults and 10–80 mAs for paediatric patients. Seventy percent of datasets presented scans acquired with tube current modulation, 9% used fixed tube current and in 21% of them, this information was not available. Dependence between mean CTDI(vol) values and protocol intent was statistically significant (p = 0.002). As expected, in diagnostic protocols, there was a statistically significant difference between CTDI(vol) values of with and without contrast acquisitions (11.68 mGy vs 7.99 mGy, p = 0.009). In 13 out of 87 studies, the optimisation aim was not reported; in 2 papers, a clinical protocol was used; and in 11 works, a dose optimisation protocol was applied. CONCLUSIONS: According to this review, the dose optimisation in PET/CT exams depends heavily on the correct implementation of the CT protocol. In addition to this, considering the latest technology advances (i.e. iterative algorithms development), we suggest a periodic quality control audit to stay updated on new clinical utility modalities and to achieve a shared standardisation of clinical protocols. In conclusion, this study pointed out the necessity to better identify the specific CT protocol use within PET/CT scans, taking into account the continuous development of new technologies. Springer International Publishing 2020-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7076098/ /pubmed/32180029 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40658-020-00287-x Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Review Bertolini, V. Palmieri, A. Bassi, M. C. Bertolini, M. Trojani, V. Piccagli, V. Fioroni, F. Cavuto, S. Guberti, M. Versari, A. Cola, S. CT protocol optimisation in PET/CT: a systematic review |
title | CT protocol optimisation in PET/CT: a systematic review |
title_full | CT protocol optimisation in PET/CT: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | CT protocol optimisation in PET/CT: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | CT protocol optimisation in PET/CT: a systematic review |
title_short | CT protocol optimisation in PET/CT: a systematic review |
title_sort | ct protocol optimisation in pet/ct: a systematic review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7076098/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32180029 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40658-020-00287-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bertoliniv ctprotocoloptimisationinpetctasystematicreview AT palmieria ctprotocoloptimisationinpetctasystematicreview AT bassimc ctprotocoloptimisationinpetctasystematicreview AT bertolinim ctprotocoloptimisationinpetctasystematicreview AT trojaniv ctprotocoloptimisationinpetctasystematicreview AT piccagliv ctprotocoloptimisationinpetctasystematicreview AT fioronif ctprotocoloptimisationinpetctasystematicreview AT cavutos ctprotocoloptimisationinpetctasystematicreview AT gubertim ctprotocoloptimisationinpetctasystematicreview AT versaria ctprotocoloptimisationinpetctasystematicreview AT colas ctprotocoloptimisationinpetctasystematicreview |