Open AccessUltra‐low dose CT colonography with automatic tube current modulation and sinogram‐affirmed iterative reconstruction: Effects on radiation exposure and image quality
Author(s) -
Cianci Roberta,
Delli Pizzi Andrea,
Esposito Gianluigi,
Timpani Mauro,
Tavoletta Alessandra,
Pulsone Pierluigi,
Basilico Raffaella,
Cotroneo Antonio Raffaele,
Filippone Antonella
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of applied clinical medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.83
H-Index - 48
ISSN - 1526-9914
DOI - 10.1002/acm2.12510
Subject(s) - image quality , nuclear medicine , supine position , medicine , iterative reconstruction , radiation dose , image noise , effective dose (radiation) , radiology , computer science , image (mathematics) , artificial intelligence
Objective To assess the radiation dose and image quality of ultra‐low dose ( ULD )‐C T colonography ( CTC ) obtained with the combined use of automatic tube current ( mA s) modulation with a quality reference mA s of 25 and sinogram‐affirmed iterative reconstruction ( SAFIRE ), compared to low‐dose ( LD ) C TC acquired with a quality reference mA s of 55 and reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP). Methods Eighty‐two patients underwent ULD ‐ CTC acquisition in prone position and LD ‐ CTC acquisition in supine position. Both ULD ‐ CTC and LD ‐ CTC protocols were compared in terms of radiation dose [weighted volume computed tomography dose index ( CTDI vol ) and effective dose], image noise, image quality, and polyp detection. Results The mean effective dose of ULD ‐ CTC was significantly lower than that of LD ‐ CTC (0.98 and 2.69 mS v respectively, P < 0.0001) with an overall dose reduction of 63.2%. Image noise was comparable between ULD ‐ CTC and LD ‐ CTC (28.6 and 29.8 respectively, P = 0.09). There was no relevant difference when comparing image quality scores and polyp detection for both 2D and 3D images. Conclusion ULD ‐ CTC allows to significantly reduce the radiation dose without meaningful image quality degradation compared to LD ‐ CTC .