Abdominal CT radiation dose reduction at Siriraj Hospital (Phase III)

P. Apisarnthanarak, Anawat Sriwaleephun, Sastrawut Thammakittiphan, Wimonrat Lornimitdee, Atchariya Klinhom, Tarntip Suwatananonthakij, K. Muangsomboon, Wanwarang Teerasamit, Sopa Pongpornsup, W. Chaiyasoot
{"title":"Abdominal CT radiation dose reduction at Siriraj Hospital (Phase III)","authors":"P. Apisarnthanarak, Anawat Sriwaleephun, Sastrawut Thammakittiphan, Wimonrat Lornimitdee, Atchariya Klinhom, Tarntip Suwatananonthakij, K. Muangsomboon, Wanwarang Teerasamit, Sopa Pongpornsup, W. Chaiyasoot","doi":"10.46475/aseanjr.v22i1.82","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE: To compare the image quality and the radiation dose between fixed tube current (FTC) low dose abdominal CT currently performed at our hospital and new automatic tube current modulation (ATCM) low dose abdominal CT.\nMATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively performed ATCM low dose abdominal CT in 88 participants who had prior FTC low dose CT for comparison. Four experienced abdominal radiologists independently and blindly assessed the quality of FTC and ATCM low dose CT images by using a 5-point-scale satisfaction score (1 = unacceptable, 2 = poor, 3 = average, 4 = good, and 5 = excellent image quality). Each reader selected the preferred image set between FTC and ATCM low dose techniques for each participant. The image noise of the liver and the aorta in both techniques was measured. The volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) of both techniques was compared.\nRESULTS: The mean satisfaction scores (SD) for FTC and ATCM low dose CT were 4.38 (0.66) and 4.38 (0.64), respectively with the ranges of 3 to 5 in both techniques, which were all acceptable for CT interpretation. The preferred image set between FTC and ATCM low dose techniques of each participant randomly selected by each reader were varied, depending on the readers’ opinions. The mean image noise of the aorta on FTC and ATCM low dose CT accounted for 34.75 and 36.46, respectively, while the mean image noise of the liver was 28.86 and 29.81, respectively. The mean CTDIvol (SD) of FTC and ATCM low dose CT were 8.42 (0.32) and 8.12 (0.43) mGy, respectively.  \nCONCLUSION: FTC and ATCM low dose abdominal CT provided comparable acceptable image quality and showed no clinical significance in radiation dose optimization.","PeriodicalId":180936,"journal":{"name":"The ASEAN Journal of Radiology","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The ASEAN Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46475/aseanjr.v22i1.82","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the image quality and the radiation dose between fixed tube current (FTC) low dose abdominal CT currently performed at our hospital and new automatic tube current modulation (ATCM) low dose abdominal CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively performed ATCM low dose abdominal CT in 88 participants who had prior FTC low dose CT for comparison. Four experienced abdominal radiologists independently and blindly assessed the quality of FTC and ATCM low dose CT images by using a 5-point-scale satisfaction score (1 = unacceptable, 2 = poor, 3 = average, 4 = good, and 5 = excellent image quality). Each reader selected the preferred image set between FTC and ATCM low dose techniques for each participant. The image noise of the liver and the aorta in both techniques was measured. The volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) of both techniques was compared. RESULTS: The mean satisfaction scores (SD) for FTC and ATCM low dose CT were 4.38 (0.66) and 4.38 (0.64), respectively with the ranges of 3 to 5 in both techniques, which were all acceptable for CT interpretation. The preferred image set between FTC and ATCM low dose techniques of each participant randomly selected by each reader were varied, depending on the readers’ opinions. The mean image noise of the aorta on FTC and ATCM low dose CT accounted for 34.75 and 36.46, respectively, while the mean image noise of the liver was 28.86 and 29.81, respectively. The mean CTDIvol (SD) of FTC and ATCM low dose CT were 8.42 (0.32) and 8.12 (0.43) mGy, respectively.   CONCLUSION: FTC and ATCM low dose abdominal CT provided comparable acceptable image quality and showed no clinical significance in radiation dose optimization.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Siriraj医院腹部CT辐射剂量降低(第三期)
目的:比较我院目前采用的固定管电流(FTC)低剂量腹部CT与新型自动管电流调制(ATCM)低剂量腹部CT的图像质量和辐射剂量。材料和方法:我们前瞻性地对88名先前接受过FTC低剂量CT的参与者进行了ATCM低剂量腹部CT的比较。4名经验丰富的腹部放射科医生独立、盲目地对FTC和ATCM低剂量CT图像质量采用5分制满意度评分(1 =不能接受,2 =较差,3 =一般,4 =良好,5 =优秀)进行评估。每位读者为每位参与者选择FTC和ATCM低剂量技术之间的首选图像集。测量了两种方法的肝脏和主动脉的图像噪声。比较两种方法的体积CT剂量指数(CTDIvol)。结果:FTC和ATCM低剂量CT的平均满意度评分(SD)分别为4.38(0.66)和4.38(0.64),范围在3 ~ 5之间,均可用于CT解释。每位读者随机选择的每位参与者在FTC和ATCM低剂量技术之间的首选图像集是不同的,这取决于读者的意见。FTC和ATCM低剂量CT主动脉图像噪声均值分别为34.75和36.46,肝脏图像噪声均值分别为28.86和29.81。FTC和ATCM低剂量CT的平均CTDIvol (SD)分别为8.42(0.32)和8.12 (0.43)mGy。结论:FTC与ATCM低剂量腹部CT图像质量相当,在优化辐射剂量方面无临床意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Acute changes of superior mesenteric artery pressure after intraarterial bolus injection of prostaglandin-E1. Superficial siderosis presenting as hemiparesis in a paediatric patient with congenital Factor V deficiency – A case report. Returning to the pre-pandemic situation but still in the years of infections MEMORIAL: PROFESSOR EMERITUS CHALEOW PIYACHON preoperative factors associated with underestimation of invasive breast cancer in stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy-diagnosed DCIS patients
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1