Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of image quality and lesion perception by human readers on 3D CT colonography: comparison of standard and low radiation dose

  • Gastrointestinal
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aims

We compared the prevalence of noise-related artefacts and lesion perception on three-dimensional (3D) CT colonography (CTC) at standard and low radiation doses.

Methods

Forty-eight patients underwent CTC (64 × 0.625 mm collimation; tube rotation time 0.5 s; automatic tube current modulation: standard dose 40–160 mA, low dose 10–50 mA). Low- and standard-dose acquisitions were performed in the supine position, one after the other. The presence of artefacts (cobblestone and snow artefacts, irregularly delineated folds) and the presence of polyps were evaluated by five radiologists on 3D images at standard dose, the original low dose and a modified low dose, i.e. after manipulation of opacity on 3D.

Results

The mean effective dose was 3.9 ± 1.3 mSv at standard dose and 1.03 ± 0.4 mSv at low dose. The number of images showing cobblestone artefacts and irregularly delineated folds at original and modified low doses was significantly higher than at standard dose (P < 0.0001). Most of the artefacts on modified low-dose images were mild. No significant difference in sensitivity between the dose levels was found for polyps ≥6 mm.

Conclusions

Reduction of the effective dose to 1 mSv significantly affects image quality on 3D CTC, but the perception of ≥6 mm lesions is not significantly impaired.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al (2008) Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin 58:130–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brenner DJ, Georgsson MA (2005) Mass screening with CT colonography: should the radiation exposure be of concern. Gastroenterology 129:328–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. American College of Radiology (2006) ACR practice guideline for the performance of computed tomography (CT) colonography in adults. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA

    Google Scholar 

  4. Macari M, Bini EJ, Xue X, Milano A, Katz SS, Resnick D, Chandarana H, Krinsky G, Klingenbeck K, Marshall CH, Megibow AJ (2002) Colorectal neoplasms: prospective comparison of thin-section low-dose multi-detector row CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection. Radiology 224:383–392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Van Gelder RE, Venema HW, Serlie IW, Nio CY, Determann RM, Tipker CA, Vos FM, Glas AS, Bartelsman JF, Bossuyt PM, Laméris JS, Stoker J (2002) CT colonography at different radiation dose levels: feasibility of dose reduction. Radiology 224:25–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, Brink JA, Mangiapane F, Trenna S, Piacentini F, Passariello R (2003) Detection of colorectal lesions: lower-dose multi-detector row helical CT colonography compared with conventional colonoscopy. Radiology 229:775–781

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Van Gelder RE, Venema HW, Florie J, Nio CY, Serlie IW, Schutter MP, van Rijn JC, Vos FM, Glas AS, Bossuyt PM, Bartelsman JF, Laméris JS, Stoker J (2004) CT colonography: feasibility of substantial dose reduction–comparison of medium to very low doses in identical patients. Radiology 232:611–620

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cohnen M, Vogt C, Beck A, Andersen K, Heinen W, vom Dahl S, Aurich V, Haeussinger D, Moedder U (2004) Feasibility of MDCT colonography in ultra-low-dose technique in the detection of colorectal lesions: comparison with high-resolution video colonoscopy. Am J Roentgenol 183:1355–1359

    Google Scholar 

  9. Vogt C, Cohnen M, Beck A, vom Dahl S, Aurich V, Mödder U, Häussinger D (2004) Detection of colorectal polyps by multislice CT colonography with ultra-low-dose technique: comparison with high-resolution videocolonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 60:201–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Iannaccone R, Catalano C, Mangiapane F, Murakami T, Lamazza A, Fiori E, Schillaci A, Marin D, Nofroni I, Hori M, Passariello R (2005) Colorectal polyps: detection with low-dose multi-detector row helical CT colonography versus two sequential colonoscopies. Radiology 237:927–937

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Capuñay CM, Carrascosa PM, Bou-Khair A, Castagnino N, Ninomiya I, Carrascosa JM (2005) Low radiation dose multislice CT colonography in children: experience after 100 studies. Eur J Radiol 56:398–402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Florie J, van Gelder RE, Schutter MP, van Randen A, Venema HW, de Jager S, van der Hulst VP, Prent A, Bipat S, Bossuyt PM, Baak LC, Stoker J (2007) Feasibility study of computed tomography colonography using limited bowel preparation at normal and low-dose levels study. Eur Radiol 17:3112–3122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tack D, De Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA (2003) Dose reduction in multidetector CT using attenuation-based online tube current modulation. Am J Roentgenol 181:331–334

    Google Scholar 

  14. Graser A, Wintersperger BJ, Suess C, Reiser MF, Becker CR (2006) Dose reduction and image quality in MDCT colonography using tube current modulation. Am J Roentgenol 187:695–701

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Fisichella V, Jäderling F, Horvath S, Stotzer PO, Kilander A, Hellström M (2009) Primary three-dimensional analysis with perspective-filet view versus primary two-dimensional analysis: evaluation of lesion detection by inexperienced readers at computed tomographic colonography in symptomatic patients. Acta Radiol 50:244–255

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, Butler JA, Puckett ML, Hildebrandt HA, Wong RK, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA, Schindler WR (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349:2191–2200

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M (2008) Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology 248:254–263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. IEC (1999) International standard of IEC 60601-2-44. Medical electrical equipment - part 2–44: particular requirements for the safety of x-ray equipment for computed tomography

  19. Bongartz G, Golding SJ, Jurik AG et al (1999) European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Report EUR 16262 EN. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

  20. Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, Martín López E, Ulla M, Castiglioni R, Carrascosa J (2007) Multidetector CT colonoscopy: evaluation of the perspective-filet view virtual colon dissection technique for the detection of elevated lesions. Abdom Imaging 32:582–588

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. McFarland EG, Brink JA, Loh J, Wang G, Argiro V, Balfe DM, Heiken JP, Vannier MW (1997) Visualization of colorectal polyps with spiral CT colography: evaluation of processing parameters with perspective volume rendering. Radiology 205:701–707

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Börjesson S, Håkansson M, Båth M, Kheddache S, Svensson S, Tingberg A, Grahn A, Ruschin M, Hemdal B, Mattsson S, Månsson LG (2005) A software tool for increased efficiency in observer performance studies in radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 114:45–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Båth M, Månsson LG (2007) Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. Br J Radiol 80:169–176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mang T, Maier A, Plank C, Mueller-Mang C, Herold C, Schima W (2007) Pitfalls in multi-detector row CT colonography: a systematic approach. Radiographics 27:431–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kurt Rossmann Laboratories for Radiologic Image Research at the University of Chicago (2009) Software download. http://www-radiology.uchicago.edu/krl/KRL_ROC/software_index6.htm. Accessed on the 19 February 2009

  26. Chakraborty DP (2009) JAFROC-1 software. www.devchakraborty.com

  27. Chakraborty DP (2008) Validation and statistical power comparison of methods for analyzing free-response observer performance studies. Acad Radiol 15:1554–1566

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for financial support from the Swedish Cancer Society, The Västra Götaland Region Research Funding under the LUA/ALF Agreement, The Göteborg Medical Society and The Capio Research Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Bruna Stråket 11, 41342, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Valeria A. Fisichella, Åse Allansdotter Johnsson & Mikael Hellström

  2. Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Valeria A. Fisichella, Åse Allansdotter Johnsson & Mikael Hellström

  3. Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Magnus Båth

  4. Department of Radiation Physics, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Magnus Båth

  5. Department of Radiology, St. Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden

    Fredrik Jäderling

  6. Department of Radiology, Västra Frölunda Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Tommy Bergsten

  7. Department of Radiology, Lindesberg Hospital, Lindesberg, Sweden

    Ulf Persson

  8. Department of Radiology, Ullevål University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

    Kristin Mellingen

Authors
  1. Valeria A. Fisichella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Magnus Båth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Åse Allansdotter Johnsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fredrik Jäderling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tommy Bergsten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ulf Persson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kristin Mellingen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mikael Hellström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valeria A. Fisichella.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fisichella, V.A., Båth, M., Allansdotter Johnsson, Å. et al. Evaluation of image quality and lesion perception by human readers on 3D CT colonography: comparison of standard and low radiation dose. Eur Radiol 20, 630–639 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1601-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1601-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation