Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회지)

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Image Qualities of 80 kVp and 120 kVp CT Venography Using Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction at Same Radiation Dose

동일한 방사선량에서 모델기반 반복재구성법을 사용한 80 kVp와 120 kVp의 전산화단층 정맥조영술의 영상 품질에 대한 비교

  • Baek, Hyun Jung (Department of Radiology, Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine) ;
  • Choo, Ki Seok (Department of Radiology, Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine) ;
  • Nam, Kyung Jin (Department of Radiology, Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine) ;
  • Hwang, Jae-Yeon (Department of Radiology, Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Ji Won (Department of Radiology, Pusan National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Jin You (Department of Radiology, Pusan National University Hospital) ;
  • Jung, Hyuk Jae (Department of Vascular Surgery, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine)
  • 백현정 (부산대학교 의과대학 양산부산대학교병원 영상의학과, 의생명융합연구소) ;
  • 추기석 (부산대학교 의과대학 양산부산대학교병원 영상의학과, 의생명융합연구소) ;
  • 남경진 (부산대학교 의과대학 양산부산대학교병원 영상의학과, 의생명융합연구소) ;
  • 황재연 (부산대학교 의과대학 양산부산대학교병원 영상의학과, 의생명융합연구소) ;
  • 이지원 (부산대학교병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 김진유 (부산대학교병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 정혁재 (부산대학교 의과대학 양산부산대학교병원 혈관외과)
  • Received : 2017.06.08
  • Accepted : 2017.08.18
  • Published : 2018.04.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To compare image qualities of 80 kVp CT venography (CTV) and 120 kVp CTV by model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) at the same radiation dose. Materials and Methods: Sixty-nine patients that underwent CTV using 80 kVp (36 patients, group 1) or 120 kVp (33 patients, group 2) with MBIR at the same radiation dose were enrolled, and objective and subjective image qualities were assessed independently by two radiologists. Results: Mean vascular enhancement and contrast-to-noise ratio were significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2 for inferior vena cavas, femoral veins, and popliteal veins (p < 0.001), and there was significantly lower objective image noise in group 1 (p < 0.001). Subjective analysis revealed image quality was significantly higher in group 1 and image noise was significantly higher in group 2 (p < 0.001). Mean dose-length products was not significantly lower in group 1 ($356.1{\pm}153.7mGy\;cm$) than in group 2 ($370.1{\pm}77.1mGy\;cm$) (p = 0.635). Conclusion: CTV at 80 kVp with MBIR is a better protocol than CTV at 120 kVp with MBIR at the same radiation dose.

목적: 동일한 방사선량에서 모델기반 반복재구성법(이하 MBIR)을 사용한 80 kVp와 120 kVp의 전산화단층 정맥조영술(이하 CTV) 영상 품질에 대해 비교하였다. 대상과 방법: 동일한 방사선량에서 MBIR을 사용하여 80 kVp (36명, 1군) 또는 120 kVp (33명, 2군)로 하여 CTV를 시행한 환자 69명을 대상으로 하여, 두 명의 영상의학과 의사가 독립적으로 객관적 그리고 주관적 영상 품질 평가를 수행하였다. 결과: 평균 혈관 조영과 신호대잡음비는 하대정맥, 대퇴정맥, 오금정맥에서 2군보다 1군에서 유의하게 높았고, 객관적 영상 잡음은 1군에서 유의하게 낮았다(p < 0.001). 주관적 평가에서 1군의 영상 질이 유의하게 높았고, 영상 잡음은 2군에서 유의하게 높았다(p < 0.001). 평균 선량길이곱은 2군($370.1{\pm}77.1mGy\;cm$)보다 1군($356.1{\pm}153.7mGy\;cm$)이 더 낮았지만, 통계적 유의성은 없었다(p = 0.635). 결론: 동일한 방사선량에서 MBIR을 사용한 80 kVp CTV의 영상이 120 kVp CTV 영상보다 우수하다.

Keywords

References

  1. Cho ES, Chung JJ, Kim S, Kim JH, Yu JS, Yoon CS. CT venography for deep vein thrombosis using a low tube voltage (100 kVp) setting could increase venous enhancement and reduce the amount of administered iodine. Korean J Radiol 2013;14:183-193 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2013.14.2.183
  2. Loud PA, Katz DS, Klippenstein DL, Shah RD, Grossman ZD. Combined CT venography and pulmonary angiography in suspected thromboembolic disease: diagnostic accuracy for deep venous evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174:61-65 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.174.1.1740061
  3. Duwe KM, Shiau M, Budorick NE, Austin JH, Berkmen YM. Evaluation of the lower extremity veins in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: a retrospective comparison of helical CT venography and sonography. 2000 ARRS Executive Council Award I. American Roentgen Ray Society. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:1525-1531 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.175.6.1751525
  4. Byun SS, Kim JH, Kim YJ, Jeon YS, Park CH, Kim WH. Evaluation of deep vein thrombosis with multidetector row CT after orthopedic arthroplasty: a prospective study for comparison with Doppler sonography. Korean J Radiol 2008; 9:59-66 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2008.9.1.59
  5. Liu L. Model-based iterative reconstruction: a promising algorithm for today's computed tomography imaging. J Med Imag Radiat Sci 2014;45:131-136 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2014.02.002
  6. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Blake MA, Lucey BC, Karau K, Toth TL, et al. Detection and characterization of lesions on low-radiation- dose abdominal CT images postprocessed with noise reduction filters. Radiology 2004;232:791-797 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2323031563
  7. Ichikawa Y, Kitagawa K, Nagasawa N, Murashima S, Sakuma H. CT of the chest with model-based, fully iterative reconstruction: comparison with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. BMC Med Imaging 2013;13:27 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2342-13-27
  8. Nelson RC, Feuerlein S, Boll DT. New iterative reconstruction techniques for cardiovascular computed tomography: how do they work, and what are the advantages and disadvantages? J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2011;5:286-292 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2011.07.001
  9. Kim JH, Choo KS, Moon TY, Lee JW, Jeon UB, Kim TU, et al. Comparison of the image qualities of filtered back-projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and model-based iterative reconstruction for CT venography at 80 kVp. Eur Radiol 2016;26:2055-2063 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4060-1
  10. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Schmidt B, Westerman BL, Morgan HT, et al. Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology 2004;233:649-657 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2333031150
  11. Fujikawa A, Matsuoka S, Kuramochi K, Yoshikawa T, Yagihashi K, Kurihara Y, et al. Vascular enhancement and image quality of CT venography: comparison of standard and low kilovoltage settings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:838-843 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5424
  12. Kulkarni NM, Sahani DV, Desai GS, Kalva SP. Indirect computed tomography venography of the lower extremities using single-source dual-energy computed tomography: advantage of low-kiloelectron volt monochromatic images. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2012;23:879-886 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2012.04.012
  13. Nakayama Y, Awai K, Funama Y, Hatemura M, Imuta M, Nakaura T, et al. Abdominal CT with low tube voltage: preliminary observations about radiation dose, contrast enhancement, image quality, and noise. Radiology 2005;237:945-951 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2373041655
  14. Curry TS, Dowdey JE, Murry RC. Christensen's physics of diagnostic radiology. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 1990
  15. Wintersperger B, Jakobs T, Herzog P, Schaller S, Nikolaou K, Suess C, et al. Aorto-iliac multidetector-row CT angiography with low kV settings: improved vessel enhancement and simultaneous reduction of radiation dose. Eur Radiol 2005; 15:334-341 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2575-y
  16. Ertl-Wagner BB, Hoffmann RT, Bruning R, Herrmann K, Snyder B, Blume JD, et al. Multi-detector row CT angiography of the brain at various kilovoltage settings. Radiology 2004; 231:528-535 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2312030543
  17. Gunn ML, Kohr JR. State of the art: technologies for computed tomography dose reduction. Emerg Radiol 2010; 17:209-218 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-009-0850-6
  18. Thibault JB, Sauer KD, Bouman CA, Hsieh J. A three-dimensional statistical approach to improved image quality for multislice helical CT. Med Phys 2007;34:4526-4544 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2789499
  19. Pickhardt PJ, Lubner MG, Kim DH, Tang J, Ruma JA, del Rio AM, et al. Abdominal CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;199:1266-1274 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9382
  20. Vardhanabhuti V, Loader RJ, Mitchell GR, Riordan RD, Roobottom CA. Image quality assessment of standard- and lowdose chest CT using filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and novel model-based iterative reconstruction algorithms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200:545-552 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9424
  21. Mieville FA, Gudinchet F, Brunelle F, Bochud FO, Verdun FR. Iterative reconstruction methods in two different MDCT scanners: physical metrics and 4-alternative forced-choice detectability experiments--a phantom approach. Phys Med 2013;29:99-110 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2011.12.004
  22. Brisse HJ, Madec L, Gaboriaud G, Lemoine T, Savignoni A, Neuenschwander S, et al. Automatic exposure control in multichannel CT with tube current modulation to achieve a constant level of image noise: experimental assessment on pediatric phantoms. Med Phys 2007;34:3018-3033 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2746492

Cited by

  1. Fat-suppressed magnetic resonance volume interpolated examination for deep venous thrombosis compared with duplex sonography vol.19, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2020.8500