medigraphic.com
ISSN 1727-897X (Electronic)

2022, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Medisur 2022; 20 (2)

Quality of computed tomography image versus dose in hybrid studies: preliminary results in manikin

López DA, del Pozo AA, Machado TA, Batista RK, Calderón MCF, Torres AL

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 272-284
PDF size: 959.81 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: hybrid studies produce a total radiation dose that is the result of the dose imparted by the radiopharmaceutical and that emitted by the computed tomography, therefore optimization is essential.
Objective: to evaluate the relationship of the computed tomography dose with some image quality parameters in hybrid study protocols.
Methods: to evaluate the image quality, the Catphan and Livermore Phantom were used in 12 pre-established protocols of a Mediso single photon emission tomography equipment. The data for the dose descriptors for each study were obtained from the DICOM head. The classic image quality parameters such as noise and the MTF 50% for the Catphan manikin, and others such as the contrast-noise ratio, the average of Hounsfield numbers and their standard deviation in the regions of interest of the corresponding organs were compared, in Livermore's mannequin. The relationship of these quality parameters with the dose descriptors of the different protocols was analyzed.
Results: the quality-related parameters in the Catphan manikin did not show significant differences (p <0.05) between the different protocols for hybrid studies. Significant differences were found between the clinical protocols with different qualities and the standard clinical protocol, for the anthropomorphic manikin, in the standard deviation of the Hounsfield numbers and in the contrast-to-noise ratio (p <0.05).
Conclusions: the study of the contrast noise ratio and the deviation of the computed tomography numbers in the regions of interest can serve as a quantitative parameter for the optimization of doses in the clinical setting.


REFERENCES

  1. Bebbington NA, Haddock B, Bertilsson H, Hippeläinen E, Husby HM, Tunninen VI, et al. A Nordic survey of CT doses in hybrid PET/CT and SPECT/CT examinations. EJNMMI Physics. 2019, 6:24

  2. International Atomic Energy Agency. Radiation protection and safety in medical uses of ionizing radiation[Internet]. Viena: IAEA; 2018[citado 20/03/2021]. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/PUB1775_web.pdf 2.

  3. Brindhaban A. Effective Dose to Patients from SPECT and CT During Myocardial Perfusion Imaging. J Nucl Med Technol. 2020. 2020(48):143-7.

  4. Katarian B, Althénb JN, Smedbyc Ö, Perssona A, Sökjerd H, Sandborg M. Assessment of image quality in abdominal computed tomography: Effect of model-based iterative reconstruction, multi-planar reconstruction and slice thickness on potential dose reduction. Eur J Radiol. 2020;122:108703

  5. Njiki CD, Ndjaka Manyol JEM, Ebele Yigbedeck Y, William Abou'ou D, Clovis Yimele B, Sabouang JF. Assessment of Image Quality Parameters for Computed Tomography in the City of Yaound. Open Journal of Radiology. 2018;8:37-44.

  6. Verdun FR, Racine D, Ott JG, Tapiovaara MJ, Toroi P, Bochud FO, et al. Image quality in CT: From physical measurements to model observers. Phys Med. 2015;31(8):823-43.

  7. Centro para el Control Estatal de Medicamentos, Equipos y Dispositivos Médicos. Resolución 43/2021. Disposición reguladora E 95-21: Protocolo para el Control de Calidad a Equipos de Tomografía Computarizada[Internet]. La Habana: CECMED; 2021[citado 6/12/2021]. Disponible en: Disponible en: https://www.cecmed.cu/ultimas-regulaciones/protocolo-control-calidad-equipos-tomografia-computarizada 7.

  8. Barca P, Paolicchi F, Aringhieri G, Palmas F, Marfisi D, Fantacci ME, et al. A comprehensive assessment of physical image quality of five different scanners for head CT imaging as clinically used at a single hospital centre-A phantom study. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(1):e0245374.

  9. Gharbi S, Labidi S, Mars M, Chelli M, Meftah S, Ladeb MF. Assessment of organ dose and image quality in head and chest CT examinations: a phantom study. J. Radiol Prot. 2018;38:807-18.

  10. Grosser OS, Kupitz D, Ruf J, Czuczwara D, Steffen IG, Furth C, et al. Optimization of SPECT-CT Hybrid Imaging Using Iterative Image Reconstruction for Low-Dose CT: A Phantom Study. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(9):e0138658.

  11. Baek Lee K, Woo Goo H. Quantitative Image Quality and Histogram-Based Evaluations of an Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm at Low-to-Ultralow Radiation Dose Levels: A Phantom Study in Chest CT. Korean J Radiol. 2018;19(1):119-29.

  12. Muhammad NA, Kayun Z, Abu Hassan H, Wong JH, Ng KH, Karim MK. Evaluation of Organ Dose and Image Quality Metrics of Pediatric CT Chest Abdomen-Pelvis (CAP) Examination: An Anthropomorphic Phantom Study. Appl Sci. 2021;11:2047.

  13. Jagoda P, Dzierma Y, Ziegenhain F, Speicher K, Rübe C, Buecker A, et al. Establishment of Submillisievert Abdominal CT Protocols With an In Vivo Swine Model and an Anthropomorphic Phantom. AJR. 2020;215:685-694.

  14. Jensen JT, Telesmanich ME, Wagner-Bartak NA, Liu X, Rong J, Szklaruk J, et al. Based Iterative Reconstruction valuation of Abdominal CT Image Quality Using a New Version of Vendor-Specific Model. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2017;41(1):67-74.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com