Comparison of radiation dose estimates, image noise, and scan duration in pediatric body imaging for volumetric and helical modes on 320-detector CT and helical mode on 64-detector CT
- 637 Downloads
Advanced multidetector CT systems facilitate volumetric image acquisition, which offers theoretic dose savings over helical acquisition with shorter scan times.
Compare effective dose (ED), scan duration and image noise using 320- and 64-detector CT scanners in various acquisition modes for clinical chest, abdomen and pelvis protocols.
Materials and methods
ED and scan durations were determined for 64-detector helical, 160-detector helical and volume modes under chest, abdomen and pelvis protocols on 320-detector CT with adaptive collimation and 64-detector helical mode on 64-detector CT without adaptive collimation in a phantom representing a 5-year-old child. Noise was measured as standard deviation of Hounsfield units.
Compared to 64-detector helical CT, all acquisition modes on 320-detector CT resulted in lower ED and scan durations. Dose savings were greater for chest (27–46%) than abdomen/pelvis (18–28%) and chest/abdomen/pelvis imaging (8–14%). Noise was similar across scanning modes, although some protocols on 320-detector CT produced slightly higher noise.
Dose savings can be achieved for chest, abdomen/pelvis and chest/abdomen/pelvis examinations on 320-detector CT compared to helical acquisition on 64-detector CT, with shorter scan durations. Although noise differences between some modes reached statistical significance, this is of doubtful diagnostic significance and will be studied further in a clinical setting.
KeywordsRadiation dosage Volume computed tomography Multidetector computed tomography Scan time Children
This investigation was presented at the 2012 Society for Pediatric Radiology meeting, San Francisco, CA1.
The authors thank Lane Donnelly, Brian Coley, Lisa Lemen, and Marilyn Goske for their support of this investigation.
Conflicts of interest
J.H.J.: No conflicts of interest to disclose. D.J.P.: Consultancy for General Electric, member of the professional speaker bureau for Toshiba America Medical Systems, author for Amirsys. T.T.Y.: No conflicts of interest to disclosure. E.A.: Employee of Toshiba America Medical Systems. G.T.: No conflicts of interest to disclose. D.B.L.: Author for Amirsys, intellectual property/royalty from Radimetrics. J.C.E.: No conflicts of interest to disclose. C.A-E.: No conflicts of interest to disclose. G.B.N.: No conflicts of interest to disclose. A.B.: Employee of Toshiba America Medical Systems. C.A.: No conflicts of interest to disclose. S.R.S.: No conflicts of interest to disclose. D.P.F.: No conflicts of interest to disclose.
- 4.Bogdanich W, Rebelo K (2011) X-rays and unshielded infants. New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/health/28radiation.html?_r=0. Published 27 February 2011: Accessed 17 December 2012.
- 14.ICRP (2007) The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 37:1–332Google Scholar
- 16.Cristy M, Eckerman KF (1987) Specific absorbed fractions of energy at various ages from internal photon sources. ORNL/TM-8381. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak RidgeGoogle Scholar
- 18.American Association of Physicists in Medicine (2011) Report 204: Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College ParkGoogle Scholar