Reducing the radiation dose for computed tomography colonography using model-based iterative reconstruction

Assessment of Imaging Protocol and Patients Radiation Exposure in Computed Tomography Colonography

In the screening and identifying of colon and rectum malignancy, computed tomography colonography (CTC) is a highly effective imaging technique, albeit patients receiving a significant effective dose. Accordingly, patient dose evaluation is an important need, seeking to ensure benefits outweigh the projected cancer risk. Objective: For CTC procedures carried out in the Radiology Department, Medical Imaging Operation Services, King Fahad Medical City (KFMC), evaluation is done using the current American College of Radiology (ACR) imaging protocol and concomitant patient-effective doses. Study is carried out on a sample size of 55 CTC procedures, involving 25 males (45%) and 30 females (55%). The patients were classified as follows: two groups based on CT machine; four groups based on the applied protocol; and three groups based on the procedure results. All procedures were carried out using two machines, the products of two different vendors (a GE Healthcare DISCOVERY CT 750 HD 64 slices dual-energy scanner and a Philips Brilliance CT 64 slices scanner). The overall mean, standard deviation (SD), median, and range of the effective dose (in mSv) were 11.57 ± 7.75, 9.25 (2.17–31.93). Automatic tube current modulation (ATCM) shows a significant increase in CTDIvol up to 69% and effective dose (mSv) up to 95% than the manual tube current (mA) compared to the standard protocol. The CT protocol variation results in a three-fold variation in patient-effective dose. The technologist role is crucial in selecting a noise reference based on patient weight and adjusting tube current per slice to avoid overexposure during ATCM protocol.

CT colonography with spectral filtration and advanced modeled iterative reconstruction in the third-generation dual-source CT: image quality, radiation dose and performance in clinical utility

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate image quality, radiation dose and its diagnostic performance in clinical utility of CT colonography (CTC) applying spectral filtration and advanced modeled iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE) techniques in third-generation dual-source CT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 125 patients for screening or diagnostic purposes underwent CTC at 120kVp standard dose (120kVp-STD) with filtered-back projection reconstruction (FBP) in supine position, then at a tin-filtered 150 kVp low dose (Sn150kVp-LD) and a tin-filtered 100 kVp ultra-low dose (Sn100kVp-ULD) with ADMIRE reconstruction in prone position. Radiation metrics were recorded. Objective and subjective image qualities were compared, and the diagnostic performance was assessed for both colonic and extracolonic findings using CTC reporting and data system (C-RADS).

RESULTS

The effective dose was significantly lower for Sn150kVp-LD and Sn100kVp-ULD than 120kVp-STD protocol, resulting in 22.5% and 87.5% reductions (1.55±0.30 and 0.25±0.07 mSv vs. 2.00±0.52 mSv; both p<0.01), respectively. Image noise and signal-to-noise ratio were improved significantly for Sn150kVp-LD with ADMIRE compared with 120kVp-STD, both of which had similar excellent 2D and 3D subjective image quality with equivalent diagnostic performance. Sn100kVp-ULD with ADMIRE had decreased subjective image quality and significant different C-RADS extracolonic-score (E-score) compared with 120kVp-STD, however, C-RADS colonic-score (C-score) of that showed no significantly difference.

CONCLUSION

Sn150kVp and Sn100kVp with ADMIRE reconstruction provide an alternative low dose CTC strategy and could be feasible in clinical screening or diagnostic scenarios.

Ultra-low dose CT colonography with automatic tube current modulation and sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction: Effects on radiation exposure and image quality

Objective

To assess the radiation dose and image quality of ultra‐low dose (ULD)‐CT colonography (CTC) obtained with the combined use of automatic tube current (mAs) modulation with a quality reference mAs of 25 and sinogram‐affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE), compared to low‐dose (LD) CTC acquired with a quality reference mAs of 55 and reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP).

Methods

Eighty‐two patients underwent ULD‐CTC acquisition in prone position and LD‐CTC acquisition in supine position. Both ULD‐CTC and LD‐CTC protocols were compared in terms of radiation dose [weighted volume computed tomography dose index (CTDI_vol) and effective dose], image noise, image quality, and polyp detection.

Results

The mean effective dose of ULD‐CTC was significantly lower than that of LD‐CTC (0.98 and 2.69 mSv respectively, P < 0.0001) with an overall dose reduction of 63.2%. Image noise was comparable between ULD‐CTC and LD‐CTC (28.6 and 29.8 respectively, P = 0.09). There was no relevant difference when comparing image quality scores and polyp detection for both 2D and 3D images.

Conclusion

ULD‐CTC allows to significantly reduce the radiation dose without meaningful image quality degradation compared to LD‐CTC.

Low-Dose Computed Tomography Colonography Technique

Significant anxiety has been expressed by some over the radiation risks associated with computed tomography (CT), particularly when it applies to a screening examination such as CT colonography. These theoretic risks are far outweighed by the significant benefits colorectal cancer screening offers. Regardless of how significant the theoretic risk of CT radiation is in the older population, the ALARA principle maintains that radiation dose should be reduced to As Low As Reasonably Achievable. This article will discuss various strategies that may be utilized to reduce radiation dose and mitigate any increase in image noise that may occur.

Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Model-based Iterative Reconstruction in Low-radiation-dose Computed Tomography Colonography: Preoperative Assessment in Patients with Colorectal Cancer

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) on image quality and diagnostic performance of low-radiation-dose computed tomography colonography (CTC) in the preoperative assessment of colorectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 30 patients with colorectal cancer referred for surgical treatment. All patients underwent CTC with a standard dose (SD) protocol in the supine position and a low-dose (LD; radiation dose reduction of approximately 85%) protocol in the prone position. The SD protocol images were post-processed using filtered back projection (FBP), whereas the LD protocol images were post-processed using FBP and MBIR. Objective and subjective image quality parameters were compared among the three different methods. Preoperative evaluations, including site, length, and tumor and node staging were performed, and the findings were compared to the postsurgical findings.

RESULTS

The mean image noise of SD-FBP, LD-FBP, and LD-MBIR images was 17.3 ± 3.2, 40.5 ± 10.9, and 11.2 ± 2.0 Hounsfield units, respectively. There were significant differences for all comparison combinations among the three methods (P < .01). For image noise, the mean visual scores were significantly higher for SD-FBP and LD-MBIR than for LD-FBP, and the scores for SD-FBP and LD-MBIR were equivalent (3.9 ± 0.3 [SD-FBP], 2.0 ± 0.5 [LD-FBP], and 3.7 ± 0.3 [LD-MBIR]). Preoperative information was more accurate under SD-FBP and LD-MBIR than under LD-FBP, and the information was comparable between SD-FBP and LD-MBIR.

CONCLUSION

MBIR can yield significantly improved image quality on low-radiation-dose CTC and provide preoperative information equivalent to that of standard-radiation-dose protocol.

Extracolonic findings and radiation at CT colonography: what the referring provider needs to know

A better understanding of the risks and benefits of extracolonic findings and radiation dose will aid in the safe and proper implementation of CT colonography in clinical practice. The majority of extracolonic findings in screening patients are benign and can be ignored by referring physicians. Radiologists also need to be responsible in reporting extracolonic findings. Referring providers must be knowledgeable about the theoretic risks and controversies regarding the use of ionizing radiation. Screening CT colonography imparts a low-level of radiation to patients that is equivalent or less than annual background dose.

One-mSv CT colonography: Effect of different iterative reconstruction algorithms on radiologists' performance

PURPOSE

To analyze the effect of different reconstruction algorithms on image noise and radiologists' performance at ultra-low dose CT colonography (CTC) in human subjects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study had institutional review board approval, with waiver of the need to obtain informed consent. CTC and subsequent colonoscopy were performed at the same day in 28 patients. CTC was scanned at the supine/prone positions using 120/100kVp and fixed 10mAs, and reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR), and model-based IR (Veo) algorithms. Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) and effective radiation doses were recorded. Image noise was compared among the three datasets using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Per-polyp sensitivity and figure-of-merits were compared among the datasets using the McNemar test and jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC) analysis, respectively, by one novice and one expert reviewer in CTC.

RESULTS

Mean SSDE and effective radiation dose of CTC were 1.732mGy and 1.002mSv, respectively. Mean image noise at supine/prone position datasets was significantly lowest with Veo (17.2/13.3), followed by ASIR (52.4/38.9) and FBP (69.9/50.8) (P<0.0001). Forty-two polyps in 25 patients were reference polyps. For both readers, per-polyp sensitivity of all 42 polyps was highest with Veo reconstruction (81.0%, 64.3%), followed by ASIR (73.8%, 54.8%) and FBP (57.1%, 50.0%) with statistical significance between Veo and FBP for reader 1 (P=0.002). JAFROC analysis revealed that the figure-of-merit for the detection of polyps was highest with Veo (0.917, 0.786), followed by ASIR (0.881, 0.750) and FBP (0.750, 0.746) with statistical significances between Veo or ASIR and FBP for reader 1 (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

One-mSv CTC was not feasible using the standard FBP algorithm. However, diagnostic performance expressed as per-polyp sensitivity and figures-of-merit can be improved with the application of IR algorithms, particularly Veo.