Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Clin Radiol. 2014 Dec;69(12):e538-44. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2014.08.021. Epub 2014 Oct 5.

Comparison of radiation dose and image quality from single-energy and dual-energy CT examinations in the same patients screened for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Author information

1
Abdominal Imaging Section, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Mail Code L10, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. Electronic address: puryska@ccf.org.
2
Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. 51 Valley Stream Parkway, Malvern, PA 19355, USA.
3
Abdominal Imaging Section, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Mail Code L10, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
4
Quantitative Health Sciences, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Mail Code L10, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
5
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Digestive Disease Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Mail Code A51, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.

Abstract

AIM:

To compare radiation dose surrogates [volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose-length product (DLP), size-specific dose estimate (SSDE), and effective dose] and image noise in a cohort of patients undergoing hepatocellular carcinoma screening who underwent both single-energy CT (SECT) and dual-energy CT (DECT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

In this institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant retrospective study, 74 adults (mean age 59.5 years) underwent 64 section SECT (120 kVp and weight-based reference mAs) and 128 section dual-source DECT (100/Sn 140 kVp and CTDIvol, adjusted to match the CDTIvol of the SECT protocol) on different occasions. Noise levels were measured in the liver, inferior vena cava (IVC), retroperitoneal (RP) fat, and aorta. Generalized linear models were constructed to compare dose and noise, adjusting for effective diameter.

RESULTS:

The total DLP (1371.11 mGy-cm, SD = 527.91) and effective dose (20.57 mSv, SD = 7.92) with SECT were significantly higher than the DLP (864.84 mGy-cm, SD = 322.10) and effective dose (12.97 mSv, SD = 4.83) with DECT (p < 0.001). The differences between SECT and DECT increased as the patient's effective diameter increased (p < 0.001). Noise levels in the liver (22.4 versus 21.9 HU), IVC (22.3 versus 23.4 HU), and RP fat (23.5 versus 23 HU) were similar for DECT and SECT (p > 0.05) but were significantly lower in the aorta for DECT (25.3 versus 26.4 HU; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION:

DECT imaging of the abdomen can achieve noise levels comparable to those seen with SECT imaging without a dose penalty to patients.

PMID:
25291959
DOI:
10.1016/j.crad.2014.08.021
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center