Appropriate patient selection at abdominal dual-energy CT using 80 kV

Relationship between patient size, image noise, and image quality

Luís S. Guimarães, Joel Garland Fletcher, William S. Harmsen, Lifeng Yu, Hassan Siddiki, Zachary Melton, James E. Huprich, David Hough, Robert Hartman, Cynthia H McCollough

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

105 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the computed tomographic (CT) detector configuration, patient size, and image noise limitations that will result in acceptable image quality of 80-kV images obtained at abdominal dual-energy CT. Materials and Methods: The Institutional Review Board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study from archival material from patients consenting to the use of medical records for research purposes. A retrospective review of contrast material-enhanced abdominal dual-energy CT scans in 116 consecutive patients was performed. Three gastrointestinal radiologists noted detector configuration and graded image quality and artifacts at specified levels - midliver, midpancreas, midkidneys, and terminal ileum - by using two five-point scales. In addition, an organ-specific enhancement-to-noise ratio and background noise were measured in each patient. Patient size was measured by using the longest linear dimension at the level of interest, weight, lean body weight, body mass index, and body surface area. Detector configuration, patient sizes, and image noise levels that resulted in unacceptable image quality and artifact rankings (score of 4 or higher) were determined by using multivariate logistic regression. Results: A 14 x 1.2-mm detector configuration resulted in fewer images with unacceptable quality than did the 64 x 0.6-mm configuration at all anatomic levels (P = .004, .01, and .02 for liver, pancreas, and kidneys, respectively). Image acceptability for the kidneys and ileum was significantly greater than that for the liver for all readers and detector configurations (P < .001). For the 14 x 1.2-mm detector configuration, patient longest linear dimensions yielding acceptable image quality across readers ranged from 34.9 to 35.8 cm at the four anatomic levels. Conclusion: An 80-kV abdominal CT can be performed with appropriate diagnostic quality in a substantial percentage of the population, but it is not recommended beyond the described patient size for each anatomic level. The 14 x 1.2-mm detector configuration should be preferred.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)732-742
Number of pages11
JournalRadiology
Volume257
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2010

Fingerprint

Patient Selection
Ileum
Artifacts
Noise
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
Kidney
Research Ethics Committees
Body Surface Area
Liver
Contrast Media
Medical Records
Biomedical Research
Pancreas
Body Mass Index
Retrospective Studies
Logistic Models
Body Weight
Weights and Measures
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Appropriate patient selection at abdominal dual-energy CT using 80 kV : Relationship between patient size, image noise, and image quality. / Guimarães, Luís S.; Fletcher, Joel Garland; Harmsen, William S.; Yu, Lifeng; Siddiki, Hassan; Melton, Zachary; Huprich, James E.; Hough, David; Hartman, Robert; McCollough, Cynthia H.

In: Radiology, Vol. 257, No. 3, 12.2010, p. 732-742.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Guimarães, Luís S. ; Fletcher, Joel Garland ; Harmsen, William S. ; Yu, Lifeng ; Siddiki, Hassan ; Melton, Zachary ; Huprich, James E. ; Hough, David ; Hartman, Robert ; McCollough, Cynthia H. / Appropriate patient selection at abdominal dual-energy CT using 80 kV : Relationship between patient size, image noise, and image quality. In: Radiology. 2010 ; Vol. 257, No. 3. pp. 732-742.
@article{76b4df74d4f048eeb743f168df058108,
title = "Appropriate patient selection at abdominal dual-energy CT using 80 kV: Relationship between patient size, image noise, and image quality",
abstract = "Purpose: To determine the computed tomographic (CT) detector configuration, patient size, and image noise limitations that will result in acceptable image quality of 80-kV images obtained at abdominal dual-energy CT. Materials and Methods: The Institutional Review Board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study from archival material from patients consenting to the use of medical records for research purposes. A retrospective review of contrast material-enhanced abdominal dual-energy CT scans in 116 consecutive patients was performed. Three gastrointestinal radiologists noted detector configuration and graded image quality and artifacts at specified levels - midliver, midpancreas, midkidneys, and terminal ileum - by using two five-point scales. In addition, an organ-specific enhancement-to-noise ratio and background noise were measured in each patient. Patient size was measured by using the longest linear dimension at the level of interest, weight, lean body weight, body mass index, and body surface area. Detector configuration, patient sizes, and image noise levels that resulted in unacceptable image quality and artifact rankings (score of 4 or higher) were determined by using multivariate logistic regression. Results: A 14 x 1.2-mm detector configuration resulted in fewer images with unacceptable quality than did the 64 x 0.6-mm configuration at all anatomic levels (P = .004, .01, and .02 for liver, pancreas, and kidneys, respectively). Image acceptability for the kidneys and ileum was significantly greater than that for the liver for all readers and detector configurations (P < .001). For the 14 x 1.2-mm detector configuration, patient longest linear dimensions yielding acceptable image quality across readers ranged from 34.9 to 35.8 cm at the four anatomic levels. Conclusion: An 80-kV abdominal CT can be performed with appropriate diagnostic quality in a substantial percentage of the population, but it is not recommended beyond the described patient size for each anatomic level. The 14 x 1.2-mm detector configuration should be preferred.",
author = "Guimar{\~a}es, {Lu{\'i}s S.} and Fletcher, {Joel Garland} and Harmsen, {William S.} and Lifeng Yu and Hassan Siddiki and Zachary Melton and Huprich, {James E.} and David Hough and Robert Hartman and McCollough, {Cynthia H}",
year = "2010",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1148/radiol.10092016",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "257",
pages = "732--742",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Appropriate patient selection at abdominal dual-energy CT using 80 kV

T2 - Relationship between patient size, image noise, and image quality

AU - Guimarães, Luís S.

AU - Fletcher, Joel Garland

AU - Harmsen, William S.

AU - Yu, Lifeng

AU - Siddiki, Hassan

AU - Melton, Zachary

AU - Huprich, James E.

AU - Hough, David

AU - Hartman, Robert

AU - McCollough, Cynthia H

PY - 2010/12

Y1 - 2010/12

N2 - Purpose: To determine the computed tomographic (CT) detector configuration, patient size, and image noise limitations that will result in acceptable image quality of 80-kV images obtained at abdominal dual-energy CT. Materials and Methods: The Institutional Review Board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study from archival material from patients consenting to the use of medical records for research purposes. A retrospective review of contrast material-enhanced abdominal dual-energy CT scans in 116 consecutive patients was performed. Three gastrointestinal radiologists noted detector configuration and graded image quality and artifacts at specified levels - midliver, midpancreas, midkidneys, and terminal ileum - by using two five-point scales. In addition, an organ-specific enhancement-to-noise ratio and background noise were measured in each patient. Patient size was measured by using the longest linear dimension at the level of interest, weight, lean body weight, body mass index, and body surface area. Detector configuration, patient sizes, and image noise levels that resulted in unacceptable image quality and artifact rankings (score of 4 or higher) were determined by using multivariate logistic regression. Results: A 14 x 1.2-mm detector configuration resulted in fewer images with unacceptable quality than did the 64 x 0.6-mm configuration at all anatomic levels (P = .004, .01, and .02 for liver, pancreas, and kidneys, respectively). Image acceptability for the kidneys and ileum was significantly greater than that for the liver for all readers and detector configurations (P < .001). For the 14 x 1.2-mm detector configuration, patient longest linear dimensions yielding acceptable image quality across readers ranged from 34.9 to 35.8 cm at the four anatomic levels. Conclusion: An 80-kV abdominal CT can be performed with appropriate diagnostic quality in a substantial percentage of the population, but it is not recommended beyond the described patient size for each anatomic level. The 14 x 1.2-mm detector configuration should be preferred.

AB - Purpose: To determine the computed tomographic (CT) detector configuration, patient size, and image noise limitations that will result in acceptable image quality of 80-kV images obtained at abdominal dual-energy CT. Materials and Methods: The Institutional Review Board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study from archival material from patients consenting to the use of medical records for research purposes. A retrospective review of contrast material-enhanced abdominal dual-energy CT scans in 116 consecutive patients was performed. Three gastrointestinal radiologists noted detector configuration and graded image quality and artifacts at specified levels - midliver, midpancreas, midkidneys, and terminal ileum - by using two five-point scales. In addition, an organ-specific enhancement-to-noise ratio and background noise were measured in each patient. Patient size was measured by using the longest linear dimension at the level of interest, weight, lean body weight, body mass index, and body surface area. Detector configuration, patient sizes, and image noise levels that resulted in unacceptable image quality and artifact rankings (score of 4 or higher) were determined by using multivariate logistic regression. Results: A 14 x 1.2-mm detector configuration resulted in fewer images with unacceptable quality than did the 64 x 0.6-mm configuration at all anatomic levels (P = .004, .01, and .02 for liver, pancreas, and kidneys, respectively). Image acceptability for the kidneys and ileum was significantly greater than that for the liver for all readers and detector configurations (P < .001). For the 14 x 1.2-mm detector configuration, patient longest linear dimensions yielding acceptable image quality across readers ranged from 34.9 to 35.8 cm at the four anatomic levels. Conclusion: An 80-kV abdominal CT can be performed with appropriate diagnostic quality in a substantial percentage of the population, but it is not recommended beyond the described patient size for each anatomic level. The 14 x 1.2-mm detector configuration should be preferred.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78649653575&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78649653575&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1148/radiol.10092016

DO - 10.1148/radiol.10092016

M3 - Article

VL - 257

SP - 732

EP - 742

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 3

ER -