Cargando…

The helically‐acquired CTDI(vol) as an alternative to traditional methodology

PURPOSE: Most clinical computed tomography (CT) protocols use helical scanning; however, the traditional method for CTDI(vol) measurement replaces the helical protocol with an axial scan, which is not easily accomplished on many scanners and may lead to unmatched collimation settings and bowtie filt...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leon, Stephanie M., Kobistek, Robert J., Olguin, Edmond A., Zhang, Zhongwei, Barreto, Izabella L., Schwarz, Bryan C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7484853/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32519415
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12944
_version_ 1783581059095461888
author Leon, Stephanie M.
Kobistek, Robert J.
Olguin, Edmond A.
Zhang, Zhongwei
Barreto, Izabella L.
Schwarz, Bryan C.
author_facet Leon, Stephanie M.
Kobistek, Robert J.
Olguin, Edmond A.
Zhang, Zhongwei
Barreto, Izabella L.
Schwarz, Bryan C.
author_sort Leon, Stephanie M.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Most clinical computed tomography (CT) protocols use helical scanning; however, the traditional method for CTDI(vol) measurement replaces the helical protocol with an axial scan, which is not easily accomplished on many scanners and may lead to unmatched collimation settings and bowtie filters. This study assesses whether CTDI(vol) can be accurately measured with a helical scan and determines the impact of pitch, collimation width, and excess scan length. METHODS: CTDI(vol) was measured for 95 helical protocols on 31 CT scanners from all major manufacturers. CTDI(vol) was measured axially, then again helically, with the scan range set to the active area of the pencil chamber seen on the localizer image. CTDI(vol) measurements using each method were compared to each other and to the scanner‐displayed CTDI(vol). To test the impact of scan length, the study was repeated on four scanners, with the scan range set to the phantom borders seen on the localizer. RESULTS: It was not possible to match the collimation width between the axial and helical modes for 12 of the 95 protocols tested. For helical and axial protocols with matched collimation, the difference between the two methods averaged below 1 mGy with a correlation of R(2) = 0.99. The difference between the methods was not statistically significant (P = 0.81). The traditional method produced four measurements that differed from the displayed CTDI(vol) by >20%; no helical measurements did. The accuracy of the helical CTDI(vol) was independent of protocol pitch (R(2) = 0.0) or collimation (R(2) = 0.0). Extending the scan range to the phantom borders increased the measured CTDI(vol) by 2.1%–9.7%. CONCLUSION: There was excellent agreement between the two measurement methods and to the displayed CTDI(vol), without protocol or vendor dependence. The helical CTDI(vol) measurement can be accomplished more easily than the axial method on many scanners and is reasonable to use for QC purposes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7484853
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74848532020-09-17 The helically‐acquired CTDI(vol) as an alternative to traditional methodology Leon, Stephanie M. Kobistek, Robert J. Olguin, Edmond A. Zhang, Zhongwei Barreto, Izabella L. Schwarz, Bryan C. J Appl Clin Med Phys Medical Imaging PURPOSE: Most clinical computed tomography (CT) protocols use helical scanning; however, the traditional method for CTDI(vol) measurement replaces the helical protocol with an axial scan, which is not easily accomplished on many scanners and may lead to unmatched collimation settings and bowtie filters. This study assesses whether CTDI(vol) can be accurately measured with a helical scan and determines the impact of pitch, collimation width, and excess scan length. METHODS: CTDI(vol) was measured for 95 helical protocols on 31 CT scanners from all major manufacturers. CTDI(vol) was measured axially, then again helically, with the scan range set to the active area of the pencil chamber seen on the localizer image. CTDI(vol) measurements using each method were compared to each other and to the scanner‐displayed CTDI(vol). To test the impact of scan length, the study was repeated on four scanners, with the scan range set to the phantom borders seen on the localizer. RESULTS: It was not possible to match the collimation width between the axial and helical modes for 12 of the 95 protocols tested. For helical and axial protocols with matched collimation, the difference between the two methods averaged below 1 mGy with a correlation of R(2) = 0.99. The difference between the methods was not statistically significant (P = 0.81). The traditional method produced four measurements that differed from the displayed CTDI(vol) by >20%; no helical measurements did. The accuracy of the helical CTDI(vol) was independent of protocol pitch (R(2) = 0.0) or collimation (R(2) = 0.0). Extending the scan range to the phantom borders increased the measured CTDI(vol) by 2.1%–9.7%. CONCLUSION: There was excellent agreement between the two measurement methods and to the displayed CTDI(vol), without protocol or vendor dependence. The helical CTDI(vol) measurement can be accomplished more easily than the axial method on many scanners and is reasonable to use for QC purposes. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-06-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7484853/ /pubmed/32519415 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12944 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Medical Imaging
Leon, Stephanie M.
Kobistek, Robert J.
Olguin, Edmond A.
Zhang, Zhongwei
Barreto, Izabella L.
Schwarz, Bryan C.
The helically‐acquired CTDI(vol) as an alternative to traditional methodology
title The helically‐acquired CTDI(vol) as an alternative to traditional methodology
title_full The helically‐acquired CTDI(vol) as an alternative to traditional methodology
title_fullStr The helically‐acquired CTDI(vol) as an alternative to traditional methodology
title_full_unstemmed The helically‐acquired CTDI(vol) as an alternative to traditional methodology
title_short The helically‐acquired CTDI(vol) as an alternative to traditional methodology
title_sort helically‐acquired ctdi(vol) as an alternative to traditional methodology
topic Medical Imaging
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7484853/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32519415
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12944
work_keys_str_mv AT leonstephaniem thehelicallyacquiredctdivolasanalternativetotraditionalmethodology
AT kobistekrobertj thehelicallyacquiredctdivolasanalternativetotraditionalmethodology
AT olguinedmonda thehelicallyacquiredctdivolasanalternativetotraditionalmethodology
AT zhangzhongwei thehelicallyacquiredctdivolasanalternativetotraditionalmethodology
AT barretoizabellal thehelicallyacquiredctdivolasanalternativetotraditionalmethodology
AT schwarzbryanc thehelicallyacquiredctdivolasanalternativetotraditionalmethodology
AT leonstephaniem helicallyacquiredctdivolasanalternativetotraditionalmethodology
AT kobistekrobertj helicallyacquiredctdivolasanalternativetotraditionalmethodology
AT olguinedmonda helicallyacquiredctdivolasanalternativetotraditionalmethodology
AT zhangzhongwei helicallyacquiredctdivolasanalternativetotraditionalmethodology
AT barretoizabellal helicallyacquiredctdivolasanalternativetotraditionalmethodology
AT schwarzbryanc helicallyacquiredctdivolasanalternativetotraditionalmethodology