A methodological approach for the comparison of CT systems in terms of radiation dose and image quality

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Evgenia Konstantinou , Antonios Ε. Papadakis , Maria Daskalogiannaki , Apostolos Karantanas , John Damilakis
{"title":"A methodological approach for the comparison of CT systems in terms of radiation dose and image quality","authors":"Evgenia Konstantinou ,&nbsp;Antonios Ε. Papadakis ,&nbsp;Maria Daskalogiannaki ,&nbsp;Apostolos Karantanas ,&nbsp;John Damilakis","doi":"10.1016/j.ejmp.2025.105092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>This study aims to apply a comparative methodology for two different computed tomography (CT) scanners, by evaluating patient radiation dose and image quality.</div></div><div><h3>Materials &amp; methods</h3><div>A total of 189 consecutive non-enhanced and enhanced abdominal examinations, were performed using General Electric Revolution GSI (scanner A) and Siemens Somatom Drive (scanner B) scanners. Both protocols had been previously optimized by the same team for the two scanners, ensuring consistent image quality during comparison. CT dose index volume (CTDI<sub>vol</sub>) and dose-length product (DLP) were recorded, and percent dose difference between scanners was estimated. Image quality was objectively assessed using image noise and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and subjectively with a five-point scale. Utilizing the same protocols, an anthropomorphic phantom was irradiated to estimate organ doses. Statistical analysis was conducted to compare the examined parameters.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The CTDI<sub>vol</sub> and DLP for two scanners were 16.4–21.8 mGy and 494.7–1030.3 mGy*cm, respectively. Doses for scanner B were up to 41 % lower than scanner A. No significant CTDI<sub>vol</sub> and DLP differences were found for unenhanced scans. Organ doses ranged from 5.0 to 16.9 mGy for both scanners, with scanner B delivering lower doses. Image quality was comparable between two CT systems. No statistical differences were found for image quality parameters, except for CNR in non-enhanced examinations. Radiologists’ ratings were consistent with the objective assessment.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>A methodology was applied to compare two different CT scanners, regardless of patient selection criteria. Scanner B achieved lower doses for contrast-enhanced exams than scanner A.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56092,"journal":{"name":"Physica Medica-European Journal of Medical Physics","volume":"137 ","pages":"Article 105092"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physica Medica-European Journal of Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1120179725002029","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to apply a comparative methodology for two different computed tomography (CT) scanners, by evaluating patient radiation dose and image quality.

Materials & methods

A total of 189 consecutive non-enhanced and enhanced abdominal examinations, were performed using General Electric Revolution GSI (scanner A) and Siemens Somatom Drive (scanner B) scanners. Both protocols had been previously optimized by the same team for the two scanners, ensuring consistent image quality during comparison. CT dose index volume (CTDIvol) and dose-length product (DLP) were recorded, and percent dose difference between scanners was estimated. Image quality was objectively assessed using image noise and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and subjectively with a five-point scale. Utilizing the same protocols, an anthropomorphic phantom was irradiated to estimate organ doses. Statistical analysis was conducted to compare the examined parameters.

Results

The CTDIvol and DLP for two scanners were 16.4–21.8 mGy and 494.7–1030.3 mGy*cm, respectively. Doses for scanner B were up to 41 % lower than scanner A. No significant CTDIvol and DLP differences were found for unenhanced scans. Organ doses ranged from 5.0 to 16.9 mGy for both scanners, with scanner B delivering lower doses. Image quality was comparable between two CT systems. No statistical differences were found for image quality parameters, except for CNR in non-enhanced examinations. Radiologists’ ratings were consistent with the objective assessment.

Conclusion

A methodology was applied to compare two different CT scanners, regardless of patient selection criteria. Scanner B achieved lower doses for contrast-enhanced exams than scanner A.
一种在辐射剂量和图像质量方面比较CT系统的方法学方法
目的本研究旨在应用比较方法对两种不同的计算机断层扫描(CT)扫描仪,通过评估患者的辐射剂量和图像质量。材料和方法采用General Electric Revolution GSI(扫描仪A)和Siemens Somatom Drive(扫描仪B),对189例连续进行非增强和增强腹部检查。这两种协议之前都由同一团队针对两台扫描仪进行了优化,以确保在比较期间图像质量一致。记录CT剂量指数体积(CTDIvol)和剂量长度积(DLP),估计不同扫描仪之间的剂量差异百分比。客观上采用图像噪声和噪声对比比(CNR)评价图像质量,主观上采用五分制评价图像质量。使用相同的程序,一个拟人化的幻影被照射以估计器官剂量。对检测参数进行统计分析比较。结果两种扫描仪的CTDIvol和DLP分别为16.4 ~ 21.8 mGy和494.7 ~ 1030.3 mGy*cm。扫描仪B的剂量比扫描仪a低41%,未增强扫描未发现显著的CTDIvol和DLP差异。两种扫描仪的器官剂量范围为5.0至16.9 mGy,扫描仪B提供的剂量较低。两种CT系统的图像质量相当。除非增强检查的CNR外,图像质量参数无统计学差异。放射科医生的评分与客观评估一致。结论在不考虑患者选择标准的情况下,采用了一种方法来比较两种不同的CT扫描仪。对比增强检查中,扫描仪B的剂量低于扫描仪A。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
14.70%
发文量
493
审稿时长
78 days
期刊介绍: Physica Medica, European Journal of Medical Physics, publishing with Elsevier from 2007, provides an international forum for research and reviews on the following main topics: Medical Imaging Radiation Therapy Radiation Protection Measuring Systems and Signal Processing Education and training in Medical Physics Professional issues in Medical Physics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信