Dual-Split CT to Simulate Multiple Radiation Doses From a Single Scan-Liver Lesion Detection Compared With Dose-Matched Single-Energy CT.


Journal

Investigative radiology
ISSN: 1536-0210
Titre abrégé: Invest Radiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0045377

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
30 Jul 2024
Historique:
medline: 29 7 2024
pubmed: 29 7 2024
entrez: 29 7 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential use of simulated radiation doses from a dual-split CT scan for dose optimization by comparing their lesion detectability to dose-matched single-energy CT acquisitions at different radiation dose levels using a mathematical model observer. An anthropomorphic abdominal phantom with liver lesions (5-10 mm, both hyperattenuating and hypoattenuating) was imaged using a third-generation dual-source CT in single-energy dual-source mode at 100 kVp and 3 radiation doses (5, 2.5, 1.25 mGy). The tube current was 67% for tube A and 33% for tube B. For each dose, 5 simulated radiation doses (100%, 67%, 55%, 45%, 39%, and 33%) were generated through linear image blending. The phantom was also imaged using traditional single-source single-energy mode at equivalent doses. Each setup was repeated 10 times. Image noise texture was evaluated by the average spatial frequency (fav) of the noise power spectrum. Liver lesion detection was measured by the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), using a channelized Hotelling model observer with 10 dense Gaussian channels. Fav decreased at lower radiation doses and differed between simulated and single-energy images (eg, 0.16 mm-1 vs 0.14 mm-1 for simulated and single-energy images at 1.25 mGy), indicating slightly blotchier noise texture for dual-split CT. For hyperattenuating lesions, the mean AUC ranged between 0.92-0.99, 0.81-0.96, and 0.68-0.89 for single-energy, and between 0.91-0.99, 0.78-0.91, and 0.70-0.85 for dual-split at 5 mGy, 2.5 mGy, and 1.25 mGy, respectively. For hypoattenuating lesions, the AUC ranged between 0.90-0.98, 0.75-0.93, and 0.69-0.86 for the single-energy, and between 0.92-0.99, 0.76-0.87, and 0.67-0.81 for dual-split at 5 mGy, 2.5 mGy, and 1.25 mGy, respectively. AUC values were similar between both modes at 5 mGy, and slightly lower, albeit not significantly, for the dual-split mode at 2.5 and 1.25 mGy. Lesion detectability was comparable between multiple simulated radiation doses from a dual-split CT scan and dose-matched single-energy CT. Noise texture was slightly blotchier in the simulated images. Simulated doses using dual-split CT can be used to assess the impact of radiation dose reduction on lesion detectability without the need for repeated patient scans.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39074298
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000001111
pii: 00004424-990000000-00239
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: Department of Radiology of the Kantonsspital Baden has research agreements with Siemens Healthcare GmbH unrelated to this study. The Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology of the University Hospital Zurich received institutional grants from Bayer Healthcare AG, Canon, Guerbet, and Siemens Healthcare GmbH unrelated to this study. In addition, A.E. and H.A. are part of the speaker's bureau of Siemens. Other authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Frija G, Damilakis J, Paulo G, et al. Cumulative effective dose from recurrent CT examinations in Europe: proposal for clinical guidance based on an ESR EuroSafe imaging survey. Eur Radiol. 2021;31:5514–5523.
Cao C-F, Ma K-L, Shan H, et al. CT scans and cancer risks: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2022;22:1238.
Schindera ST, Odedra D, Raza SA, et al. Iterative reconstruction algorithm for CT: can radiation dose be decreased while low-contrast detectability is preserved? Radiology. 2013;269:511–518.
Euler A, Stieltjes B, Szucs-Farkas Z, et al. Impact of model-based iterative reconstruction on low-contrast lesion detection and image quality in abdominal CT: a 12-reader-based comparative phantom study with filtered back projection at different tube voltages. Eur Radiol. 2017;27:5252–5259.
Jensen K, Andersen HK, Smedby Ö, et al. Quantitative measurements versus receiver operating characteristics and visual grading regression in CT images reconstructed with iterative reconstruction: a phantom study. Acad Radiol. 2018;25:509–518.
Mileto A, Zamora DA, Alessio AM, et al. CT detectability of small low-contrast hypoattenuating focal lesions: iterative reconstructions versus filtered back projection. Radiology. 2018;289:443–454.
Jensen CT, Wagner-Bartak NA, Vu LN, et al. Detection of colorectal hepatic metastases is superior at standard radiation dose CT versus reduced dose CT. Radiology. 2019;290:400–409.
Fletcher JG, Grant KLR, Fidler JL, et al. Validation of dual-source single-tube reconstruction as a method to obtain half-dose images to evaluate radiation dose and noise reduction: phantom and human assessment using CT colonography and sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE). J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2012;36:560–569.
Baker ME, Dong F, Primak A, et al. Contrast-to-noise ratio and low-contrast object resolution on full- and low-dose MDCT: SAFIRE versus filtered back projection in a low-contrast object phantom and in the liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:8–18.
Bellini D, Ramirez-Giraldo JC, Bibbey A, et al. Dual-source single-energy multidetector CT used to obtain multiple radiation exposure levels within the same patient: phantom development and clinical validation. Radiology. 2017;283:526–537.
Ding Y, Marin D, Vernuccio F, et al. Variability of quantitative measurements of metastatic liver lesions: a multi-radiation-dose-level and multi-reader comparison. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021;46:226–236.
Martini K, Jungblut L, Sartoretti T, et al. Impact of radiation dose on the detection of interstitial lung changes and image quality in low-dose chest CT—assessment in multiple dose levels from a single patient scan. Eur J Radiol. 2023;166:110981.
Geyer LL, Schoepf UJ, Meinel FG, et al. State of the art: iterative CT reconstruction techniques. Radiology. 2015;276:339–357.
Mohammadinejad P, Mileto A, Yu L, et al. CT noise-reduction methods for lower-dose scanning: strengths and weaknesses of iterative reconstruction algorithms and new techniques. Radiographics. 2021;41:1493–1508.
Morsbach F, Desbiolles L, Raupach R, et al. Noise texture deviation: a measure for quantifying artifacts in computed tomography images with iterative reconstructions. Invest Radiol. 2017;52:87–94.
Racine D, Mergen V, Viry A, et al. Photon-counting detector CT with quantum iterative reconstruction: impact on liver lesion detection and radiation dose reduction. Invest Radiol. 2023;58:245–252.
Racine D, Mergen V, Viry A, et al. Photon-counting detector CT for liver lesion detection-optimal virtual monoenergetic energy for different simulated patient sizes and radiation doses. Invest Radiol. 2024.
Solomon J, Samei E. Correlation between human detection accuracy and observer model-based image quality metrics in computed tomography. J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2016;3:035506.
Yu L, Chen B, Kofler JM, et al. Correlation between a 2D channelized Hotelling observer and human observers in a low-contrast detection task with multislice reading in CT. Med Phys. 2017;44:3990–3999.
Vennart W. ICRU report 54: medical imaging—the assessment of image quality: ISBN 0-913394-53-X. April 1996, Maryland, U.S.A. Radiography. 1997;3:243–244.
International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. ICRU Report No. 87: radiation dose and image-quality assessment in computed tomography. J ICRU. 2012;12:1–149.
Racine D, Ba AH, Ott JG, et al. Objective assessment of low contrast detectability in computed tomography with channelized Hotelling observer. Phys Med. 2016;32:76–83.
Zhang Y, Leng S, Yu L, et al. Correlation between human and model observer performance for discrimination task in CT. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:3389–3404.
Racine D, Ott JG, Ba A, et al. Objective task-based assessment of low-contrast detectability in iterative reconstruction. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2016;169(1–4):73–77.
Brankov JG. Evaluation of the channelized Hotelling observer with an internal-noise model in a train-test paradigm for cardiac SPECT defect detection. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58:7159–7182.
Meyer M, Ronald J, Vernuccio F, et al. Reproducibility of CT radiomic features within the same patient: influence of radiation dose and CT reconstruction settings. Radiology. 2019;293:583–591.

Auteurs

Damien Racine (D)

From the Institute of Radiation Physics, University Hospital Lausanne (CHUV), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland (D.R., L.G.M., A.V.); Department of Radiology, Kantonsspital Baden, Affiliated Hospital for Research and Teaching of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Zurich, Baden, Switzerland (T.N., R.A.K.-H., A.E.); Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Division of Neuroradiology and Musculoskeletal Radiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria (B.N.); and Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland (H.A., T.F.).

Classifications MeSH