Indirect CT Venography at 80 kVp with Sinogram-Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction Compared to 120 kVp with Filtered Back Projection: Assessment of Image Quality and Radiation Dose.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the image quality and radiation dose of indirect computed tomographic venography (CTV) using 80 kVp with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) and 120 kVp with filtered back projection (FBP).

Materials and methods

This retrospective study was approved by our institution and informed consent was waived. Sixty-one consecutive patients (M: F = 27: 34, mean age 60 ± 16, mean BMI 23.6 ± 3.6 kg/m2) underwent pelvic and lower extremity CTVs [group A (n = 31, 120 kVp, reconstructed with FBP) vs. group B (n = 30, 80 kVp, reconstructed with SAFIRE)]. The vascular enhancement, image noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were compared. Subjective image analysis for image quality and noise was performed by two radiologists. Radiation dose was compared between the two groups.

Results

Compared with group A, higher mean vascular enhancement was observed in the group B (group A vs. B, 118.8 ± 15.7 HU vs. 178.6 ± 39.6 HU, p < 0.001), as well as image noise (12.0 ± 3.8 HU vs. 17.9 ± 6.1 HU, p < 0.001) and CNR (5.1 ± 1.9 vs. 7.6 ± 3.0, p < 0.001). The SNRs were not significantly different in both groups (11.2 ± 4.8 vs. 10.8 ± 3.7, p = 0.617). There was no significant difference in subjective image quality between the two groups (all p > 0.05). The subjective image noise was higher in the group B (p = 0.036 in reader 1, p = 0.005 in reader 2). The inter-observer reliability for assessing subjective image quality was good (ICC 0.746~0.784, p < 0.001). The mean CT dose index volume (CTDIvol) and mean dose length product (DLP) were significantly lower in group B than group A [CTDIvol, 6.4 ± 1.3 vs. 2.2 ± 2.2 mGy (p < 0.001); DLP, 499.1 ± 116.0 vs. 133.1 ± 45.7 mGy × cm (p < 0.001)].

Conclusions

CTV using 80 kVp combined with SAFIRE provides lower radiation dose and improved CNR compared to CTV using 120 kVp with FBP.

SUBMITTER: Song I 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5035093 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature