Comparison of image quality and radiation dose between split-filter dual-energy images and single-energy images in single-source abdominal CT
Objectives To compare image quality and radiation dose of abdominal split-filter dual-energy CT (SF-DECT) combined with monoenergetic imaging to single-energy CT (SECT) with automatic tube voltage selection (ATVS). Methods Two-hundred single-source abdominal CT scans were performed as SECT with ATVS...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European radiology 2018-08, Vol.28 (8), p.3405-3412 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Objectives
To compare image quality and radiation dose of abdominal split-filter dual-energy CT (SF-DECT) combined with monoenergetic imaging to single-energy CT (SECT) with automatic tube voltage selection (ATVS).
Methods
Two-hundred single-source abdominal CT scans were performed as SECT with ATVS (
n
= 100) and SF-DECT (
n
= 100). SF-DECT scans were reconstructed and subdivided into composed images (SF-CI) and monoenergetic images at 55 keV (SF-MI). Objective and subjective image quality were compared among single-energy images (SEI), SF-CI and SF-MI. CNR and FOM were separately calculated for the liver (e.g. CNR
liv
) and the portal vein (CNR
pv
). Radiation dose was compared using size-specific dose estimate (SSDE). Results of the three groups were compared using non-parametric tests.
Results
Image noise of SF-CI was 18% lower compared to SEI and 48% lower compared to SF-MI (
p
< 0.001). Composed images yielded higher CNR
liv
over single-energy images (23.4 vs. 20.9;
p
< 0.001), whereas CNR
pv
was significantly lower (3.5 vs. 5.2;
p
< 0.001). Monoenergetic images overcame this inferiority in CNR
pv
and achieved similar results compared to single-energy images (5.1 vs. 5.2;
p
> 0.628). Subjective sharpness was equal between single-energy and monoenergetic images and diagnostic confidence was equal between single-energy and composed images. FOM
liv
was highest for SF-CI. FOM
pv
was equal for SEI and SF-MI (
p
= 0.78). SSDE was significant lower for SF-DECT compared to SECT (
p
< 0.022).
Conclusions
The combined use of split-filter dual-energy CT images provides comparable objective and subjective image quality at lower radiation dose compared to single-energy CT with ATVS.
Key points
• Split-filter dual-energy results in 18% lower noise compared to single-energy with ATVS.
• Split-filter dual-energy results in 11% lower SSDE compared to single-energy with ATVS.
• Spectral shaping of split-filter dual-energy leads to an increased dose-efficiency. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0938-7994 1432-1084 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00330-018-5338-x |