The evolution of radiation dose over time: Measurement of a patient cohort undergoing whole-body examinations on three computer tomography generations.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the radiation dose and image quality of whole-body-CT (WBCT) performed on the 3rd-generation dual-source-CT (DSCT) with 2nd-generation DSCT and 64-slices-Single-Source-CT (SSCT) in a large patient cohort. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using a monitoring and tracking software 1451, 747 and 1861 patients scanned with a one-spiral-thorax-abdomen-pelvis-CT-examination on a 3rd-, 2nd-generation DSCT and SSCT, respectively, were extracted from the PACS server. For the intra-individual analysis, 203 patients on the 3rd-generation DSCT were identified. Out of those 203 patients, 155 had the same examination on the 2nd-generation DSCT, 91 patients had the same examination on the SSCT and 43 patients had an examination on all three CT-generations. Automatic tube current modulation was active on all three CT-generations, whereas automatic tube voltage selection was only available on both DSCT-generations. Dose was recorded by the size-specific-dose-estimate-method (SSDE); signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise-ratio (CNR) were calculated placing a ROI on the ascending aorta/liver and the subcutaneous adipose tissue at comparable level. Image quality of axillary and mediastinal lymph nodes and adrenal glands was assessed by two experienced radiologists. RESULTS: Subjective image quality was excellent throughout all three CT-generations (p=0.38-0.98). Quantitative image quality in both DSCT generations was superior to SSCT (p<0.001). SNR and CNR in the liver parenchyma were superior in the 3rd-generation DSCT compared to the 2nd generation DSCT (p<0.001), whereas there was no difference in the aorta. In the inter-individual analysis, CTDIvol was lower by 26.9% and 44.3% in the 3rd-generation DSCT, when compared to the 2nd-generation DSCT and SSCT, respectively; SSDE was lower by 31.5% and 51% in the 3rd-generation DSCT, when compared to the 2nd-generation DSCT and SSCT, respectively. In the intra-individual comparison CTDIVol in the 3rd-generation DSCT was lower by 33% and 45%, when compared to the 2nd-gneration DSCT and the SSCT, respectively. Consequently, SSDE in the 3rd-generation DSCT was lower by 29% and by 43% when compared to the 2nd-generation DSCT and SSCT, respectively. CONCLUSION: State-of-the-art CT-equipment substantially reduce radiation dose without affecting image quality.