Bismuth shield affecting CT image quality and radiation dose in adjacent and distant zones relative to shielding surface: A phantom study.

BACKGROUND: To quantify image quality and radiation doses in regions adjacent to and distant from bismuth shields in computed tomography (CT). METHODS: An American College of Radiology accreditation phantom with four solid rods embedded in a water-like background was scanned to verify CT number (CTN) accuracy when using bismuth shields. CTNs, image noise, and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) were determined in the phantom at 80-140 kVp. Image quality was investigated on image portions in the zones adjacent (A zone) to and distant (D zone) from a bismuth shield. Surface radiation doses were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters. Streak artefacts were graded on a 3-point-scale. RESULTS: Changes in CTN caused by a bismuth shield resulted in changes in X-ray spectra. CTN changes were more apparent in the A zone than in the D zone, particularly for a low tube voltage. The degrees of CTN changes and image noise were proportional to the thickness of the bismuth shields. A 1-ply bismuth shield reduced surface radiation doses by 7.2%-15.5%. The overall CNRs were slightly degraded, and streak artefacts were acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Using a bismuth shield could result in significant CTN changes and perceivable artefacts, particularly for a superficial organ close to the shield, and is not recommended for quantification CT examinations or follow-up CT examinations.

Impact of using the new American College of Radiology digital mammography phantom on quality survey in modern digital mammography systems: Evidence from nationwide surveys in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of the new American College of Radiology (ACR) digital mammography (DM) phantom in evaluating phantom image quality (IQ) and average glandular dose (AGD) in a nationwide survey on DM systems. METHODS: On-site surveys of 239 DM units were conducted in 2017 and 2018, and comparisons were made between ACR screen-film mammography (SFM) phantom and DM phantom for accessing phantom IQ and AGD. The phantom IQ was assessed using the weighted phantom score, considering the size of each detail. RESULTS: When switching from SFM phantom to DM phantom, no significant difference was found in AGD (p = 0.06). The mean weighted phantom score was significantly higher for DM phantom than for SFM phantom in terms of fibers and specks, and so was the total weighted phantom score (DM phantom vs. SFM phantom: 8.61 ± 1.04 vs. 8.23 ± 0.77, p < 0.0001). The phantom IQ is thus more precise and can detect small differences when using DM phantom and investigating DM systems, especially for specks and fibers. However, the overall passing rate was lower for DM phantom (84.1%) than for SFM phantom (91.2%). This can be explained by the lower passing rate for mass (84.5%) with the DM phantom. CONCLUSION: The ACR DM phantom provides better discernment to assess specks and fibers in DM systems. This study may serve as a reference for implementing a DM quality control program and when conducting large-scale surveys with the new DM phantom in the digital era.

Performance of adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D integrated with automatic tube current modulation in radiation dose and image noise reduction compared with filtered-back projection for 80-kVp abdominal CT: Anthropomorphic phantom and patient study.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the performance of Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction 3D (AIDR 3D) and compare with filtered-back projection (FBP) regarding radiation dosage and image quality for an 80-kVp abdominal CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An abdominal phantom underwent four CT acquisitions and reconstruction algorithms (FBP; AIDR 3D mild, standard and strong). Sixty-three patients underwent unenhanced liver CT with FBP and standard level AIDR 3D. Further post-acquisition reconstruction with strong level AIDR 3D was made. Patients were divided into two groups (< and ≧29cm) based on the abdominal effective diameter (Deff) at T12 level. Quantitative (attenuation, noise, and signal-to-noise ratio) and qualitative (image quality, noise, sharpness, and artifact) analysis by two readers were assessed and the interobserver agreement was calculated. RESULTS: Strong level AIDR 3D reduced radiation dose by 72% in the phantom and 47.1% in the patient study compared with FBP. There was no difference in mean attenuations. Image noise was the lowest and signal-to-noise ratio the highest using strong level AIDR 3D in both patient groups. For Deff<29cm, image sharpness of FBP was significantly different from those of AIDR 3D (P<0.05). For Deff ≧29cm, image quality of AIDR 3D was significantly more favorable than FBP (P<0.05). Interobserver agreement was substantial. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated AIDR 3D allows for an automatic reduction in radiation dose and maintenance of image quality compared with FBP. Using AIDR 3D reconstruction, patients with larger abdomen circumference could be imaged at 80kVp.

Low-tube-voltage (80 kVp) CT aortography using 320-row volume CT with adaptive iterative reconstruction: lower contrast medium and radiation dose.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate CT aortography at reduced tube voltage and contrast medium dose while maintaining image quality through iterative reconstruction (IR). METHODS: The Institutional Review Board approved a prospective study of 48 patients who underwent follow-up CT aortography. We performed intra-individual comparisons of arterial phase images using 120 kVp (standard tube voltage) and 80 kVp (low tube voltage). Low-tube-voltage imaging was performed on a 320-detector CT with IR following injection of 40 ml of contrast medium. We assessed aortic attenuation, aortic attenuation gradient, image noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), and figure of merit (FOM) of image noise and CNR. Two readers assessed images for diagnostic quality, image noise, and artefacts. RESULTS: The low-tube-voltage protocol showed 23-31% higher mean aortic attenuation and image noise (both P < 0.01) than the standard-tube-voltage protocol, but no significant difference in the CNR and aortic attenuation gradients. The low-tube-voltage protocol showed a 48% reduction in CTDIvol and an 80% increase in FOM of CNR. Subjective diagnostic quality was similar for both protocols, but low-tube-voltage images showed greater image noise (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Application of IR to an 80-kVp CT aortography protocol allows radiation dose and contrast medium reduction without affecting image quality. KEY POINTS: • CT aortography at 80 kVp allows a significant reduction in radiation dose. • Addition of iterative reconstruction reduces image noise and improves image quality. • The injected contrast medium dose can be substantially reduced at 80 kVp. • Aortic enhancement is uniform despite a reduced volume of contrast medium.