COMPARISON OF IMAGE QUALITY AND DIFFERENT RADIATION DOSES IN COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHIC DIAGNOSTICS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5457/ams.v50i1-2.514Keywords:
radiation doses in computerized tomography, quality of diagnostic CT images, protocol optimizationAbstract
Computerized tomography (CT) is one of the most important diagnostic modalities, whose use is growing from decade to decade. In the total number of radiological examinations CT is represented by 5-10%, but its contribution to the total received dose for the population is higher than 50%. Basic image quality indicators and radiation doses as well as the associated radiation risk depend on the applied radiographic technique or CT scan. In terms of good radiological practice and in accordance with the basic principles of radiation protection, it is desirable to apply the lowest possible dose to the patient while maintaining image quality and diagnostic information. The aim of the research is to define the optimal multislice CT scan protocols for the diagnosis of individual body regions, as well as to determine dose and radiation risk for patients before and after protocol optimization. The analysis included a total of 312 patients, divided into groups according to the regions of the body that were recorded: I - CT head, II - CT chest, III - CT chest and upper abdomen, IV - CT abdomen. The study has been conducted in 2 phases: in the first phase standard protocol for the scanned body region has been applied, and in the second phase CT examinations have been carried out according to the modified protocol (changing the values mAs and kV) with minimum requirements regarding the image quality. On the basis of dosimetric indicators the efficient dosage and irradiation risk for the patients in both phases have been assessed. In the study the guidelines from the Guide EUR 16262 EN (1) have been observed where parameters for the assessment of image quality have been defined in order to analyze different anatomic cross sections of certain body regions. Image quality for each patient was assessed by three-level visualization scale for each parameter of anatomic region: 0 - details are visible, 1 - details are presented, 2 - details are clearly presented. A subjective method was applied where two experienced radiologists performed the image interpretation. Final assessment of image quality of every examination corresponds to the sum of all parameters according to three-level visualization scale. Further, for the need of calculation of the size of FOM (figure of merit) the value of the index of assessment of the image quality (sum of all assessments of parameters/number of parameters) has been calculated. The value of FOM has been calculated as a quotient of the image quality assessment index and effective dosage per patient. The average value of FOM for every group of patients has offered us a relative indicator for comparison of non-optimum and optimum group of patients for the same type of examinations. By comparison of values of effective dosage in the first and second phase of the research a decrease in irradiation load for patients after protocol optimization was quantified. The results have shown that by optimum protocol selection in the sense of exposition parameters (by increasing and decreasing the value of mAs and kV) it is possible to reduce significantly the irradiation dosage at head CT examination for 5%, at chest CT examination for 2%, at chest and upper abdomen CT examination for 6% and at abdomen CT examination for 8%. By applying standard protocols, a high quality image is achieved that is sufficient for adequate radiological interpretation, and therefore a higher radiation dose than is needed. Optimal selection of protocols in terms of exposure parameters may significantly reduce the radiation dose, with better quality of diagnostic images necessary for further radiological interpretation.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright transfer
The listed authors warrant that they are the authors and sole owners of the submitted manuscript. The authors also warrant that the work is original; that it has not been previously published in print or electronic format and is not under consideration by another publisher or electronic medium; that it has not been previously transferred, assigned, or otherwise encumbered; and that the authors have full power to grant such rights. With respect to the results of this work, the manuscript of this or substantially similar content will not be submitted to any other journal until the review process in the Acta Medica Salinianana has been officially completed (acceptance or rejection of the manuscript). The paper will not be withdrawn from the review process by the Acta Medica Saliniana Editorial Board until the review process is completed. The authors will comply with the requests of the Acta Medica Saliniana Editors and reviewers to improve the paper for publication. The eventual disagreements will be submitted in a written form; the authors are aware that the disagreement(s) with the Acta Medica Saliniana requests may result in the rejection of the manuscript. The authors hereby grant to the Acta Medica Saliniana the right to edit, revise, abridge, and condense the manuscript. If the manuscript is accepted for publication in the Acta Medica Saliniana, the authors hereby transfer the copyright of the paper to the Acta Medica Saliniana. The authors permit the Acta Medica Saliniana to allow third parties to copy any part of the journal without asking for permission, provided that the reference to the source is given. For papers with more than one author: All other co-authors agree to allow the corresponding author to make decisions regarding prepublication release of the information in the paper to the media, federal agencies, or both.
