Keywords
cranial computed tomography - cCT - iterative reconstruction - ASIR - dose reduction
- filtered back projection
Introduction
The use of computed tomography (CT) has been constantly increasing over the last decades
and leads to higher cumulative doses of ionizing radiation in the population [1]. According to a recent survey conducted by the German Agency for Radiation Protection,
CT examinations constitute 8 % of all radiological examinations and account for 63 %
of the total population dose due to radiological examinations [2].
With the widespread availability of CT scanners, emergency departments have seen a
remarkable increase in the use of cranial CT (cCT). In an emergency setting, non-contrast
cCT is usually performed to rapidly rule out intracranial pathology. However, many
patients who undergo emergency cCT have no intracranial pathology at all. Furthermore,
there is growing evidence that the increasing use of cCT in younger patients will
lead to a higher rate of brain cancer in the future [3].
One of the principles of modern radiology is to apply the lowest possible amount of
ionizing radiation while maintaining diagnostic image quality. Efforts made to reduce
overall radiation exposure have led to new technologies, such as automated tube current
modulation and noise reduction filters [4]
[5].
Unfortunately, dose reduction with both techniques is limited when a head with a thick
skull bone is examined [6]. Lowering the tube potential in the acquisition of cCT scans reduces radiation effectively
but comes at the cost of increased image noise [7].
With the recent developments in computing power, iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms,
which were first introduced for single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)
and positron emission tomography (PET), can now also be applied to CT [8]
[9]. IR algorithms eliminate some of the increased image noise resulting from the use
of a lower tube current for the acquisition of CT scans.
Pilot studies have shown that IR algorithms have the potential to reduce the radiation
dose of cranial CT scans by 20 – 45 % [10]
[11]
[12]
[13].
This clinical study analyzes the effect of IR on effective radiation doses, image
quality and interpretability in comparison with routine CT scans of the head based
on filtered back projection (FBP) in a large patient population examined in an emergency
setting.
Materials and Methods
Study Design
The institutional ethics board approved this study. Since patients were not exposed
to additional radiation and their data were stored anonymously, the informed consent
requirement was waived. Five protocols – A, B1, B2, C1 and C2 – with increasing dose
reduction potential were used.
Patients in group A and group B1 / B2 were referred from the first-aid department.
Patients in group C1/2 had undergone head CT before and were referred by the neurosurgical
intensive care unit (ICU) for follow-up CT. We did not use protocol C1/2 (protocol
with highest dose reduction potential) on first-aid patients to avoid the risk of
having to repeat the CT examination due to insufficient image quality.
Most patients underwent cCT for one of the following acute events: trauma and/or amnesia,
skull fracture, loss of consciousness, seizure, headache, vomiting, focal neurological
deficit, coagulopathy, treatment with anticoagulants, increasing frequency of unexplained
headaches or new onset of severe or persistent headache.
Intracranial foreign material was considered an exclusion criterion in groups A, B1
and B2 but not in group C1/2, since virtually all neurosurgical ICU patients carry
intracranial foreign material.
CT Protocol
Protocols are summarized in [Table 1]. All patients were examined on a 64-slice multi-detector CT scanner (Lightspeed
VCT, GE Healthcare, USA). Patients were scanned at 120 kV and a tube current range
of 100 – 300 mA. Tube current modulation was used. In all cases, images were acquired
in a craniocaudal direction.
Table 1
CT protocol characteristics.
Tab. 1 Charakteristika der verwendeten Protokolle.
|
|
group A
|
group B1
|
group B2
|
group C1
|
group C2
|
|
tube potential
|
120 kV
|
120 kV
|
120 kV
|
120 kV
|
120 kV
|
|
noise index
|
2.8
|
4
|
4
|
6
|
6
|
|
ASIR
|
0 %
|
20 %
|
20 %
|
30 %
|
30 %
|
|
blending ratio
|
100 % FBP
0 % ASIR
|
80 % FBP
20 % ASIR
|
60 % FBP
40 % ASIR
|
70 % FBP
30 % ASIR
|
50 % FBP
50 % ASIR
|
A control group of 71 patients was scanned using CT protocol A (120 kV, filtered back
projection (FBP), NI: 2.8 = reference NI). 86 patients were scanned using CT protocol
B1 (120 kV, 20 % ASIR, NI: 4). By default, the use of 20 % ASIR results in a tube
current reduction of approximately 20 %. The raw data are analyzed using the FBP and
the ASIR algorithms, resulting in blended images of 20 % ASIR and 80 % FBP. In group
B2, raw data from group B1 were blended using 40 % ASIR and 60 % FBP. Due to technical
reasons, only 74 of 86 patients could be re-blended for group B2. In group C1, 30 %
ASIR was used on 20 patients (120 kV, 30 % ASIR, NI: 6). In group C2, raw data from
group C1 were blended using 50 % ASIR and 50 % FBP.
Data Reconstruction
ASIR is an algorithm-based protocol for reconstructing CT images with a focus on noise
reduction. It uses the information obtained from the FBP algorithm as a basis for
further transformation. The values of each pixel (y) are transformed using matrix
algebra to obtain a new estimate of the pixel value (y´), which is then compared with
the ideal value predicted by the noise model. Iterative steps are performed until
the final estimated and the ideal pixel values ultimately converge [8]. This method allows for selective subtraction of noise from a CT image.
The tool traditionally used to define desired image quality in the user interface
in GE scanners is called the noise index (NI). The NI is referenced to the HU standard
deviation in a specific size water phantom, which is compared to the attenuation measured
in the CT scout. Lowering the noise index leads to lower noise but requires a higher
tube current.
When using ASIR, however, a second option to modify tube current is introduced. In
a first step the operator choses the level of ASIR in 10 % increments from 0 % to
50 %.
By default, the use of X% ASIR results in a tube current reduction of approximately
X% during the scan. Obviously it is possible to choose values for NI and ASIR which
mutually exclude each other: e. g. a very low NI and a high level of ASIR or vice
versa. In such cases of conflicting NI and ASIR values, the system prioritizes the
NI over ASIR. This means that ASIR cannot modify tube current when an insufficient
NI is chosen. When the noise index is increased, tube reduction may be higher than
expected based on the level of ASIR chosen.
After the scan, raw data are reconstructed alternately using ASIR and FBP. ASIR- and
FBP-reconstructed images are then combined in a ratio of X% ASIR and 100-X% FBP –
e. g. when using 20 % ASIR, tube current is reduced approximately by 20 %, raw data
are reconstructed using ASIR and FBP and finally images are blended using 20 % ASIR
and 80 % FBP. However, after image acquisition different blending ratios can be used
(as we have done in groups B2 and C2).
Image Quality
Image quality was assessed quantitatively and qualitatively.
Quantitative image quality was evaluated as signal attenuation (SI) measured in Hounsfield
units (HU) and noise (i. e., standard deviation (SD) of attenuation). We chose regions
of interest (ROIs) in the lentiform nucleus (ROI1), frontal white matter (WM) (ROI2),
frontal cortical layer (ROI3), ventricle (ROI4), internal capsule (ROI5), cortical
layer of cerebellum (ROI6), WM of middle cerebellar peduncle (ROI7) and vermis (ROI8)
for analysis ([Fig. 1]).
Fig. 1 Sites of ROIs for quantitative image analysis. Supratentorial ROIs included the lentiform
nucleus (ROI1), frontal white matter (ROI2), temporal cortical layer (ROI3), ventricle
(ROI4) and internal capsule (ROI5). Infratentorial ROIs included the cortical layer
of the cerebellum (ROI6), WM of the middle cerebellar peduncle (ROI7) and the vermis
(ROI8).
Abb. 1 Lage der ROIs für die quantitative Bildanalyse. Supratentorille ROIs: Nucleus lentiformis
(ROI1), frontale weiße Substanz (ROI2), temporaler Cortex (ROI3), Ventrikel (ROI4)
und Capsula interna (ROI5). Infratentorielle ROIs: Cerebellärer Cortex (ROI6), weiße
Substanz mittlerer cerebellärer Pedunkel (ROI7) und Vermis (ROI8).
The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was calculated according to the following equation:
The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was calculated according to the following equation:
CNRs were calculated in the supratentorial (ST) region between ROI3 / ROI2 (ST—CNR C/WM)
and between ROI1 / ROI2 (ST—CNR NL/WM). For the infratentorial (IT) CNRS we chose
ROI6 / ROI7 (IT—CNR C/WM) and ROi8 / ROI7 (IT—CNR V/WM).
Two experienced radiologists with 5 and 11 years of experience performed qualitative
analysis of the acquired images in a blinded fashion after a joint training session.
All technical information was removed from the images to reduce expectation bias.
Image quality was evaluated in seven categories: noise, supratentorial contrast between
cortex and white matter, supratentorial contrast between lentiform nucleus and internal
capsule, infratentorial contrast between cortex and white matter, artifacts, overall
diagnosability and diagnostic confidence (in patients with diagnosed acute pathology).
Each category was evaluated using a five-point Likert scale where the reference was
an “ideal exam”: 1: non-diagnostic image quality, 2: uncertainty about the evaluation,
3: restricted assessment, 4: unrestricted diagnostic image evaluation possible, 5:
excellent image quality.
Radiation Dose
Dose-length products (DLPs) and the computed tomography dose index (CTDIvol) were
acquired. The effective dose (mSv) was estimated by multiplying the dose-length product
by a conversion factor of 0.0021 mSv×mGy-1 ×cm-1
[14].
Statistical Analysis
The data were analyzed using GraphPad Prism version 5.0 f for Mac (GraphPad Software,
San Diego, California, USA) and IBM SPSS Statistics 19 (New York, USA). Continuous
data were analyzed using the Student’s t-test, and ordinal data were analyzed using
the Mann-Whitney U-test. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically
significant. Interobserver agreement between the two readers was assessed using the
Cohen’s kappa test.
Results
Patient Characteristics
Patient characteristics are summarized in [Table 2]. The groups were well balanced in terms of age, male-to-female ratio or cranial
diameter.
Table 2
Patient characteristics.
Tab. 2 Eigenschaften der Patienten.
|
overall
|
group A
|
group B1
|
group B2
|
group C1
|
group C2
|
|
|
120 kV/FBP
|
120 kV/ASIR20
|
120 kV/ASIR20(40 %/60 %)
|
120 kV/ASIR30
|
120 kV/ASIR30(50 %/50 %)
|
|
n
|
177
|
71
|
86
|
74
|
20
|
20
|
|
age (y)
|
58.3 ± 19.6
|
62.1 ± 18.2
|
55.2 ± 21.2
|
55.9 ± 20.4
|
58.4 ± 15.5
|
58.4 ± 15.5
|
|
male to female ratio
|
77:100
|
32:39
|
40:46
|
34:40
|
5:15
|
5:15
|
|
anteroposterior diameter(cm)
|
19.6 ± 0.93
|
19.8 ± 1.0
|
19.5 ± 0.82
|
19.5 ± 0.82
|
19.3 ± 0.87
|
19.3 ± 0.87
|
|
transverse diameter (cm)
|
15.9 ± 0.8
|
16.1 ± 0.7
|
15.7 ± 0.83
|
15.7 ± 0.85
|
15.6 ± 0.79
|
15.6 ± 0.79
|
|
no pathology
|
86 (48.6 %)
|
28 (39.4 %)
|
57 (66.2 %)
|
50 (67.6 %)
|
0 (0 %)
|
0 (0 %)
|
|
acute bleeding
|
35 (19.8 %)
|
14 (19.7 %)
|
6 (7 %)
|
6 (8.1 %)
|
15 (75 %)
|
15 (75 %)
|
|
subacute ischemia
|
16 (9 %)
|
9 (12.7 %)
|
6 (7 %)
|
5 (6.8 %)
|
1 (5 %)
|
1 (5 %)
|
|
post ischemia
|
9 (5.1 %)
|
6 (8.5 %)
|
3 (3.5 %)
|
3 (4.1 %)
|
0 (0 %)
|
0 (0 %)
|
|
post tumor resection
|
16 (9 %)
|
7 (9.9 %)
|
8 (9.3 %)
|
6 (8.1 %)
|
1 (5 %)
|
1 (5 %)
|
|
other non-acute pathology
|
15 (8.5)
|
7 (9.9 %)
|
6 (7 %)
|
4 (5.4 %)
|
3 (15 %)
|
3 (15 %)
|
The groups were well balanced with respect to age, male/female ratio and cranial diameter.
The high number of patients with no intracranial pathology underlines the necessity
to keep the level of ionizing radiation as low as reasonably possible.
Die Gruppen waren ausgeglichen in Bezug auf Alter, Geschlechtsverhältnis und Kopfdurchmesser.
Die hohe Anzahl an Patienten ohne intracranielle Pathologie unterstreicht die Wichtigkeit
die Dosis ionisierender Strahlen so niedrig wie möglich zu halten.
Of the 157 patients referred for cranial CT scans from the emergency department (groups
A and B), 22.3 % showed acute or subacute pathologies, such as acute bleeding or subacute
ischemia and 23.6 % showed chronic pathologies (status post-tumor resection, postischemic
scarring), and 54.1 % had no pathology ([Table 2]).
Of the 20 neurosurgical ICU patients referred for follow-up imaging (group C), 75 %
showed acute bleeding, 5 % showed subacute ischemia, 5 % had undergone tumor resection,
and 15 % were referred due to other pathologies.
Quantitative Analysis of Image Quality
[Table 3] summarizes the results of quantitative analysis of image quality.
Table 3
Quantitative analysis of image quality.
Tab. 3 Quantitative Analyse der Bildqualität.
|
|
group A
|
group B1
|
A vs. B1
|
group B2
|
A vs. B2
|
group C1
|
A vs. C1
|
group C2
|
A vs. C2
|
|
|
120 kV/FBP
|
120 kV/ASIR20
|
p-value
|
120 kV/ASIR20(40 %/60 %)
|
p-value
|
120 kV/ASIR30
|
p-value
|
120 kV/ASIR30(50 %/50 %)
|
p-value
|
|
SNR ROI1
|
8.6 ± 1.4
|
6.8 ± 0.97
|
p < 0.0001
|
7.8 ± 1.2
|
p < 0.0001
|
4.4 ± 0.86
|
p < 0.0001
|
5.2 ± 0.87
|
p < 0.0001
|
|
SNR ROI2
|
6.8 ± 1.3
|
5.2 ± 0.73
|
p < 0.0001
|
5.8 ± 0.99
|
p < 0.0001
|
3.8 ± 0.65
|
p < 0.0001
|
4.2 ± 0.84
|
p < 0.0001
|
|
SNR ROI3
|
8.6 ± 1.4
|
7.5 ± 1
|
p < 0.0001
|
7.7 ± 1.4
|
p < 0.0001
|
5.2 ± 1
|
p < 0.0001
|
5.9 ± 1.5
|
p < 0.0001
|
|
SNR ROI4
|
1.2 ± 0.51
|
1.0 ± 0.36
|
p = 0.001
|
1.1 ± 0.39
|
p = 0.10
|
0.57 ± 0.25
|
p < 0.0001
|
0.64 ± 0.34
|
p < 0.0001
|
|
SNR ROI5
|
6.6 ± 1.2
|
5.2 ± 0.9
|
p < 0.0001
|
5.8 ± 1.1
|
p < 0.0001
|
3.3 ± 0.49
|
p < 0.0001
|
3.7 ± 0.44
|
p < 0.0001
|
|
SNR ROI6
|
10.2 ± 1.6
|
9.0 ± 0.14
|
p < 0.0001
|
10.0 ± 1.7
|
p = 0.53
|
7 ± 1.3
|
p < 0.0001
|
6.9 ± 1.3
|
p < 0.0001
|
|
SNR ROI7
|
6.3 ± 1.1
|
5.3 ± 1.0
|
p < 0.0001
|
5.7 ± 1.2
|
p = 0.004
|
4.2 ± 0.98
|
p < 0.0001
|
4.4 ± 8.4
|
p < 0.0001
|
|
SNR ROI8
|
8.5 ± 1.8
|
7.4 ± 1.3
|
p < 0.0001
|
8.5 ± 1.3
|
p = 0.91
|
5.1 ± 1.1
|
p < 0.0001
|
5.7 ± 1.6
|
p < 0.0001
|
|
ST-CNR C/WM
|
1.86 ± 0.5
|
1.71 ± 0.4
|
p = 0.05
|
1.81 ± 0.42
|
p = 0.5
|
1.14 ± 0.47
|
p < 0.0001
|
1.24 ± 0.58
|
p < 0.0001
|
|
ST-CNR NL/WM
|
1.39 ± 0.32
|
1.13 ± 0.27
|
p < 0.0001
|
1.47 ± 0.33
|
p = 0.13
|
0.66 ± 0.26
|
p < 0.0001
|
0.91 ± 0.23
|
p < 0.0001
|
|
IT-CNR C/WM
|
2.69 ± 0.69
|
2.19 ± 0.74
|
p < 0.0001
|
2.7 ± 0.66
|
p = 0.94
|
1.64 ± 0.52
|
p < 0.0001
|
1.53 ± 0.43
|
p < 0.0001
|
|
IT-CNR V/WM
|
1.55 ± 0.56
|
1.4 ± 0.55
|
p = 0.08
|
1.75 ± 0.5
|
p = 0.026
|
0.75 ± 0.34
|
p < 0.0001
|
0.81 ± 0.45
|
p < 0.0001
|
Compared to group A (control), group B1 showed reduced SNRs and CNRs. Group B2 showed
CNRs comparable to group A (except for the infratentorial white matter/vermis CNR).
CNR levels were the lowest in group C1. Most SNRs and CNRs increased slightly in group
C2 compared to group C1. SNR = signal to noise ratio; CNR = contrast to noise ratio.
ST-CNR C/WM = supratentorial CNR (cortex/white matter), ST-CNR NL/WM = supratentorial
CNR (lentiform nucleus/white matter), IT-CNR C/WM = infratentorial CNR (cortex/white
matter), IT-CNR V/WM = infratentorial CNR (vermis/white matter). Lentiform nucleus
(ROI1), frontal white matter (ROI2), frontal cortical layer (ROI3), ventricle (ROI4),
internal capsule (ROI5); infratentorial ROIs included the cortical layer of the cerebellum
(ROI6), WM of the middle cerebellar peduncle (ROI7) and the vermis (ROI8).
Im Vergleich zur Kontrollgruppe A zeigte Gruppe B1 niedrigere SNRs und CNRs. Gruppe
B2 zeigte CNRs, die vergleichbar mit der Kontrollgruppe waren (abgesehen von dem infratentoriellen
CNR zwischen weißer Substanz und Vermis). Die CNR-Level waren in der Gruppe C1 am
niedrigsten. Die meisten SNRs und CNRs in Gruppe C2 stiegen im Vergleich zur Gruppe
C1 leicht an. SNR = Signal/Rausch Verhältnis; CNR = Kontrast/Rausch Verhältnis. ST-CNR
C/WM = supratentorielles CNR (Cortex/weiße Substanz), ST-CNR NL/WM = supratentorielles
CNR (Nucleus lentiformis/weiße Substanz), IT-CNR C/WM = infratentorielles CNR (Cortex/weiße
Substanz), IT-CNR V/WM = infratentorielles CNR (Vermis/weiße Substanz). Supratentorielle
ROIs: Nucleus lentiformis (ROI1), frontale weiße Substanz (ROI2), frontaler Cortex
(ROI3), Ventrikel (ROI4), Capsula interna (ROI5); infratentorielle ROIs: Cerebellärer
Cortex (ROI6), weiße Substanz mittlerer cerebellärer Pedunkel (ROI7) und Vermis (ROI8).
Compared to group A (control), group B1 showed significantly reduced supra- and infratentorial
SNRs and supratentorial CNRs. The infratentorial CNRs were either significantly or
almost significantly reduced in group B1.
When the ratio of ASIR blending was further increased to 40 % in group B2, the CNRs
were comparable to group A (except for infratentorial white matter/vermis CNR). SNR
measures were similar. When ASIR blending was increased to 40 % (group B2), the SNRs
showed higher levels than in group B1 (20 % ASIR blending). Ventricular and infratentorial
gray matter SNRs reached the control group levels in group B2, while the supratentorial
gray and white matter as well as infratentorial white matter SNRs increased (compared
to group B1) but did not reach the control group levels.
All CNRs and SNRs were significantly reduced in group C1 compared to control group
A. When blending was increased to 50 % (group C2) almost all SNR and CNR values improved
slightly but did not reach levels comparable to group B2.
Qualitative Analysis of Image Quality
[Table 4], [Fig. 2], [3] present the results of the qualitative analysis of image quality and interobserver
agreement.
Table 4
Qualitative analysis of image quality and interobserver agreement κ.
Tab. 4 Die qualitative Analyse der Bildqualität und Interobserver-Variabilität κ.
|
|
group A
|
group B1
|
A vs. B1
|
group B2
|
A vs. B2
|
group C1
|
A vs. C1
|
group C2
|
A vs. C2
|
interobserver agreement κ
|
|
|
120 kV/FBP
|
120 kV/ASIR20
|
p-value
|
120 kV/ASIR20(40 %/60 %)
|
p-value
|
120 kV/ASIR30
|
p-value
|
120 kV/ASIR30(50 %/50 %)
|
p-value
|
|
noise
|
3.95 ± 0.35
|
3.4 ± 0.49
|
p < 0.0001
|
3.74 ± 0.44
|
p = 0.002
|
2 ± 0
|
p < 0.0001
|
2.3 ± 0.46
|
p < 0.0001
|
0.86
|
|
supratentorial contrast
|
3.97 ± 0.33
|
3.44 ± 0.48
|
p < 0.0001
|
3.53 ± 0.51
|
p < 0.0001
|
2 ± 0
|
p < 0.0001
|
2.3 ± 0.46
|
p < 0.0001
|
0.85
|
|
basal ganglia contrast
|
3.87 ± 0.36
|
3.47 ± 0.48
|
p < 0.0001
|
3.55 ± 0.47
|
p < 0.0001
|
2 ± 0
|
p < 0.0001
|
2.3 ± 0.46
|
p < 0.0001
|
0.86
|
|
infratentorial contrast
|
3.82 ± 0.41
|
3.43 ± 0.5
|
p < 0.0001
|
3.53 ± 0.5
|
p < 0.0001
|
2 ± 0
|
p < 0.0001
|
2.3 ± 0.46
|
p < 0.0001
|
0.86
|
|
artifacts
|
5 ± 0
|
5 ± 0
|
p > 0.99
|
5 ± 0
|
p > 0.99
|
5 ± 0
|
p > 0.99
|
5 ± 0
|
p > 0.99
|
n/a
|
|
diagnosis-related confidence
|
5 ± 0
|
4.94 ± 0.17
|
p = 0.11
|
5 ± 0
|
p > 0.99
|
4.55 ± 0.55
|
p < 0.0001
|
4.63 ± 0.54
|
p < 0.0001
|
0.72
|
|
bleeding
|
5 ± 0
|
5 ± 0
|
p > 0.99
|
5 ± 0
|
p > 0.99
|
4.67 ± 0.48
|
p < 0.0001
|
4.71 ± 0.46
|
p < 0.0001
|
0.81
|
|
subacute ischemia
|
5 ± 0
|
4.8 ± 0.42
|
p = 0.067
|
5 ± 0
|
p > 0.99
|
4 ± 0
|
p < 0.0001
|
4.5 ± 0.7
|
p < 0.0001
|
0.31
|
|
overall diagnosability
|
4.01 ± 0.26
|
3.51 ± 0.47
|
p < 0.0001
|
3.55 ± 0.47
|
p < 0.0001
|
2 ± 0
|
p < 0.0001
|
2.3 ± 0.46
|
p < 0.0001
|
0.85
|
Noise, supratentorial and infratentorial contrast were significantly reduced in group B1
and also in group B2, albeit to a lesser extent. Diagnosis-related confidence was
not compromised in group B1 or B2. Group C1 showed significantly poorer results in
terms of noise levels, contrast, diagnostic confidence and overall diagnosability,
compared to groups A and B1/2. Group C2 showed only slightly better results than group
C1. The interobserver agreement was excellent (> 0.75) for grading image noise, contrast
and overall diagnosability and good (> 0.4) for overall diagnostic confidence and
diagnostic confidence in patients with bleeding. The interobserver agreement in diagnostic
confidence in patients with subacute stroke was lower but still acceptable. Interobserver
agreement κ cannot be calculated for artifacts because both observers assigned a score
of 5 for this parameter to all CTs in all groups.
In Bezug auf Rauschen und supra- bzw. infratentoriellen Kontrast zeigten sich signifikant
schlechtere Ergebnisse in Gruppe B1 als auch in Gruppe B2. Das diagnosenspezifische
Vertrauen war weder in Gruppe B1 noch in Gruppe B2 eingeschränkt. Gruppe C1 zeigte
signifikant niedrigere Werte im Hinblick auf Rauschen, Kontrast, spezifischen diagnostischen
Wert und diagnostischen Gesamtwert, verglichen mit den Gruppen A, B1 und B2. Die Gruppe
C2 zeigte allenfalls leicht bessere Ergebnisse als die Gruppe C1. Die Interobserver-Variabilität
war exzellent (> 0.75) in Bezug auf Bildqualität, Rauschen, Kontrast und diagnostischen
Gesamtwert, gut (> 0.4) in Bezug auf den spezifischen diagnostischen Gesamtwert sowie
spezifischen diagnostischen Wert bei intracraniellen Blutungen. Die Interobserver-Variabilität
in Bezug auf den spezifischen diagnostischen Wert bei subakutem Schlaganfall war niedriger
aber noch akzeptabel. Die Interobserver-Variabilität κ in Bezug auf Artefakte kann
nicht berechnet werden, da beide Beurteilenden alle CT mit dem Wert „5” beurteilten.
Fig. 2 Image quality of cCTs obtained in patients with no pathology. a Patients without acute or subacute pathology, supratentorial image quality. Scanning
performed using 120 kV and FBP (Group A), 20 % ASIR (group B1), 20 % ASIR for dose
reduction and 40 % ASIR/60 % FBP blending (group B2) and 30 % ASIR (group C1) as well
as 30 % ASIR for dose reduction and 50 % ASIR/50 % FBP blending (group C2). Note partially
displayed ventricular drainage in group C1/2. b Patients without acute or subacute pathology, infratentorial image quality, groups
A, B1, B2, C1 and C2.
Abb. 2 Bildqualität von cCT in Patienten ohne intracranielle Pathologie. a Patienten ohne akute oder subakute Pathologie, supratentorielle Bildqualität. CT
durchgeführt mit 120 kV und FBP (Gruppe A), 20 % ASIR (Gruppe B1), 20 % ASIR zur Dosisreduktion
und 40 % ASIR/60 % FBP Rekonstruktion (Gruppe B2) und 30 % ASIR (Gruppe C1) sowie
30 % ASIR zur Dosisreduktion und 50 % ASIR/50 % FBP Rekonstruktion (Gruppe C2). Angeschnittene
Ventrikeldrainage in Gruppe C1/2. b Patienten ohne akute oder subakute Pathologie, infratentorielle Bildqualität, Gruppen
A, B1, B2, C1 und C2.
Fig. 3 Image quality of cCTs obtained in patients with acute pathologies. a Patients suffering from massive intracranial bleeding (ICB). ICB could easily be
diagnosed in all groups. b Patients suffering from subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAB). More subtle bleeding like
SAB could easily be diagnosed in group B1/2 and in the control group. Diagnostic confidence
was lower in group C1/2 compared to the control group but still acceptable for follow-up
imaging. c Patients suffering from subacute stroke. Subjective quality was significantly lower
in group B1 than in group A. The subjective quality in group B2 (when ASIR blending
was increased to 40 %) was comparable to group A. Group C1/2 showed significantly
lower values than the control group but was considered acceptable for follow-up imaging.
Abb. 3 Bildqualität der cCT von Patienten mit akuter intracranieller Pathologie. a Patienten mit intracranieller Blutung (ICB). Die Diagnose der massiven ICB kann in
allen Gruppen problemlos gestellt werden. b Patienten mit subarachnoider Blutung (SAB). Subtilere Blutungen wie SAB konnten problemlos
in den Gruppen A und B1/2 diagnostiziert werden; der diagnostische Wert der Bilder
in den Gruppen C1/2 war niedriger aber ausreichend für Folge-CT. c Patienten mit subakutem Schlaganfall. Die subjektive Bildqualität der Gruppe B1 war
niedriger als in der Kontrollgruppe. Die subjektive Qualität in Gruppe B2 (40 % ASIR
Rekonstruktion) war vergleichbar mit Gruppe A. Gruppe C1/2 zeigte signifikant niedrigere
Werte als die Kontrollgruppe, war aber ausreichend für Folge-CT.
Compared to group A, image quality in terms of noise and supratentorial and infratentorial
contrast were significantly reduced in group B1 and also in group B2, albeit to a
lesser extent.
Overall diagnosability was slightly compromised in group B1 or B2. Group C1 showed
significantly poorer results in terms of noise levels, contrast, diagnostic confidence
and overall diagnosability compared to groups A and B1/2. Group C2 showed only slightly
better results than group C1 without statistical significance.
Subgroup analysis of diagnostic confidence revealed no significant differences for
patients suffering from acute bleeding between group B1/2 and group A. Comparing group
C and group A, we found significantly lower values in group C with difficulties in
identifying subtle bleeding, such as small subarachnoid hemorrhage, whereas marked
bleeding could sufficiently be detected. In patients with subacute stroke, values
were significantly lower in group B1 compared to group A, but were comparable in group
B2 (with ASIR blending increased to 40 %). Group C1 showed significantly lower values
than the control group, and group C2 showed only marginally better results than group
C1.
Image reconstruction-related artifacts were not seen in any of the evaluated groups.
Radiation Dose
Data on radiation doses are summarized in [Table 5], [Fig. 4].
Table 5
Total DLPs, CTDIvol and effective doses.
Tab. 5 Gesamt DLPs, CTDIvol und effektive Dosis.
|
|
group A
|
group B1
|
A vs. B1
|
group B2
|
A vs. B2
|
group C1
|
A vs. C1
|
group C2
|
A vs. C2
|
|
|
120 kV/FBP
|
120 kV/ASIR20
|
p-value
|
120 kV/ASIR20(40 %/60 %)
|
p-value
|
120 kV/ASIR30
|
p-value
|
120 kV/ASIR30(50 %/50 %)
|
p-value
|
|
CTDIvol
|
51.6 ± 2.7
|
30.2 ± 2.9
|
p < 0.0001
|
30.1 ± 3
|
p < 0.0001
|
13.9 ± 6.28
|
p < 0.0001
|
13.9 ± 6.28
|
p < 0.0001
|
|
total DLP (mGy × cm)
|
768 ± 52
|
455 ± 55
|
p < 0.0001
|
455 ± 57
|
p < 0.0001
|
204 ± 97
|
p < 0.0001
|
204 ± 97
|
p < 0.0001
|
|
effective dose (mSv)
|
1.61 ± 0.11
|
1.05 ± 0.13
|
p < 0.0001
|
0.96 ± 0.11
|
p < 0.0001
|
0.43 ± 0.20
|
p < 0.0001
|
0.43 ± 0.20
|
p < 0.0001
|
Using 20 % of ASIR (group B1 and group B2) led to a significant reduction in the ED
of 40.4 % compared to group A. Using 30 % of ASIR during the scan (group C1 and group
2) reduced the ED by 73.3 %.
Die Anwendung von 20 % ASIR (Gruppe B1 und Gruppe B2) führte zu einer signifikanten
Reduktion der effektiven Dosis um 40,4 % im Vergleich zur Kontrollgruppe. Die Anwendung
von 30 % ASIR (Gruppe C1 und Gruppe C2) führte zu einer signifikanten Reduktion der
effektiven Dosis um 73,3 %.
Using 20 % ASIR for the CT scan (group B1 and group B2) led to a significant reduction
of the effective dose (ED) of 40.4 % compared to group A. Using 30 % ASIR during the
scan (group C) reduced the ED by 73.3 %.
Fig. 4 Effective dose (ED) in cranial CTs using 120 kV and FBP (A), 120 kV and 20 % ASIR
(B1 / B2) and 30 % ASIR (C1/2). Using 20 % of ASIR (group B1 and group B2) led to
a significant reduction of ED of 40.4 % compared to group A. Using 30 % of ASIR during
the scan (group C1/2) reduced the ED by 73.3 %.
Abb. 4 Die effektive Dosis (ED) cranialer CTs mit 120 kV und FBP (A), 120 kV und 20 % ASIR
(B1 / B2) und 30 % ASIR (C1/2). 20 % ASIR (Gruppe B1 und Gruppe B2) führte zu einer
signifikanten Reduktion der ED um 40,4 % im Vergleich zur Gruppe A. 30 % ASIR (Gruppe
C1/2) führte zu einer Reduktion der ED um 73,3 %.
Discussion
With the number of emergency CT scans performed worldwide increasing constantly, there
is a growing discussion on radiation-associated risks [15]. In this study, approximately three quarters of patients referred for cranial CT
from the first-aid department had no acute or subacute pathology and almost half of
them did not show any pathology whatsoever. Due to the carcinogenic potential of ionizing
radiation, cCTs should thus be performed with the lowest radiation dose that still
allows adequate diagnosis especially when younger patients are examined.
The implementation of IR algorithms is particularly noteworthy in this context. Several
studies have shown that IR algorithms significantly reduce dose while maintaining,
or in some cases even improving, image quality [8]
[9]
[16]
[17]
[18].
The results of our study show that use of a CT protocol with 20 % ASIR reduces the
dose of cranial CT by 40.4 %. When combined with blending of 40 % ASIR/60 % FBP, supratentorial
CNRs are comparable to those of the control group and infratentorial CNRs remain acceptable.
Subjective quality levels, e. g. contrast, overall diagnosability and diagnostic confidence,
are also still acceptable. We now routinely use this CT protocol in patients referred
from the emergency department in our clinic.
A CT protocol with 30 % ASIR and an increased noise index degrades both quantitative
and qualitative image quality to such an extent that it is unacceptable in everyday
clinical practice. However, the quality remains high enough for the diagnosis of life-threatening
conditions, such as acute bleeding, or brain edema or for the assessment of hydrocephalus
especially when blending is increased to 50 % ASIR/50 % FBP. In these cases, this
protocol achieved sub-millisievert scanning (0.43 ± 0.20 mSv), which is particularly
useful for the repeated follow-up examination of neurosurgical ICU patients.
One of the first studies investigating the use of ASIR in adult cranial CT was conducted
by Kilic et al. [11]. In this study, the authors showed a 31 % DLP reduction of cranial CT scans when
30 % ASIR was applied during acquisition. There was no significant reduction in image
quality and interpretability (adult patients, 49 FBP cCTs, 98 ASIR cCTs).
Ren et al. investigated the potential role of ASIR in cCTs of adults over 50 years
of age. They showed a 30 % dose reduction in 200 mAs cCTs with 50 % ASIR blending
compared to 300 mAs cCTs with FBP reconstruction (age > 50y, 40 patients) [19]. A reduction of the tube current time product from 300 mAs to 200 mAs roughly corresponds
to the use of 30 % ASIR default settings during the scan. In our study, the use of
30 % ASIR led to a higher dose reduction of 73.3 %. A possible explanation could be
the use of different noise indices. Unfortunately, NIs were not reported by Ren et
al. They evaluated diagnostic confidence but provided no information on detected pathologies.
The authors state that they focused on chronic vascular cerebral disease when scoring
image quality.
Korn and colleagues examined objective and subjective image quality at reduced tube
current rates in sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) cCTs compared
to standard dose FBP cCTs (320 mAs vs. 255 mAs). At a 20 % dose reduction, reconstruction
of a head CT by SAFIRE provided better objective and subjective image quality than
FBP reconstruction (30 FBP cCTs, 30 SAFIRE cCTs) [12]. The main purpose of this study was not to reduce the dose while maintaining image
quality but to improve image quality while maintaining the dose.
Haubenreisser et al. assessed objective and subjective image quality in FBP and SAFIRE-reconstructed
cCTs of different slice widths (1 – 5 mm; 1 mm increments). They showed significant
reductions in image noise and improved subjective image particularly in thinner slices
(29 patients, 40 cCTs) [20]. This small study, similar to the work of Korn et al., focused on finding the best
reconstruction parameters at a certain dose level and did not aim at dose reduction.
To our knowledge, the largest and most sophisticated study on iterative reconstruction
to date was performed by Komlosi et al., who investigated 200 cCTs and showed that
use of an NI of 5 (compared to FBP and an NI of 4) and 40 % ASIR blending led to a
10.5 % reduction in DLPs in adult cCTs while the image quality and noise were comparable
(100 FBP cCTs, 100 ASIR cCTs) [21]. Similar to our study, the authors gradually increased the NI and then used different
levels of ASIR/FBP blending to compensate for the higher NI. While the extent of work
is impressive, it is unfortunate that the authors did not analyze SNRs or CNRs in
the brain, which makes it hard to objectively judge image quality and noise in certain
brain regions. This is especially problematic since we believe that image quality
in infratentorial regions might be more dependent on dose variations during the scan
due to the higher bone thickness in the region. Also, an analysis of the frequency
of different pathologies was not performed.
Strengths and Limitations
To our knowledge, the work presented here is one of the largest studies investigating
iterative reconstruction in cranial CT. Despite the relatively high number of scans
performed, no study in this field has yet put an emphasis on emergency department
patients or analyzed the frequency of different pathologies. Also, no earlier investigators
have performed subgroup analysis of different pathologies. Finally, it has to be mentioned
that other publications have not distinguished between infra- and supratentorial image
quality in subjective and objective image analysis.
Our study has several limitations. Firstly, no explicit patient group matching was
done. However, the patient parameters matched well in terms of age, gender or head
diameters.
Secondly, image quality evaluation was based on the subjective impression of two readers
and qualitative analysis may indeed not have been completely blind, since an experienced
radiologist may identify an ASIR image by its typical appearance. However, we also
performed objective quantitative image analysis to corroborate qualitative evaluation.
Nevertheless, it has been questioned whether quantitative measures are the appropriate
tool for evaluating the effectiveness of IR algorithms. Jensen et al. showed that
lesion detection in a liver phantom was not improved in ASIR-reconstructed images
compared to FBP-reconstructed images of a liver phantom even though the noise decreased
and the CNR increased significantly [22].
Thirdly, patients with foreign material in the skull were excluded in groups A and
B1/2 but not in group C1/2, which might have influenced the noise levels in group
C1/2.
Conclusion
IR algorithms are a promising option for reducing radiation exposure without compromising
image quality in cranial CT. A CT protocol with a combination of 20 % ASIR and a 40 %
ASIR/60 % FBP blending ratio decreases the effective dose significantly by 40.4 %,
while producing scans with similar image quality compared to a routine dose cCT. This
CT protocol is recommended for everyday clinical practice in an emergency department
setting. The use of a CT protocol with 30 % ASIR and 50 % ASIR/50 % FBP reduces the
effective dose by 73.3 % and can be considered for follow-up scans of neurosurgical
ICU patients.
Clinical Relevance of the Study
-
The use of computed tomography has been constantly increasing and leads to higher
doses of ionizing radiation in the population
-
The routine use of 20 % ASIR cCTs with 40 %ASIR/60 %FBP blending may lead to a dose
reduction of more than 40 % in these cCTs without compromising diagnosis-related confidence
-
30 % ASIR cCTs with 50 %ASIR/50 %FBP are adequate for follow-up imaging and offer
a dose reduction of over 70 % in these cCTs
