Low tube voltage CT for improved detection of pancreatic cancer: detection threshold for small, simulated lesions

BMC Medical Imaging

Anders Sundin³  Bertil Leidner²  Nikolaos Kartalis²  Nils Albiin²  Louiza Loizou²  Jon Holm¹ 

[1]Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, 17177 Stockholm, Sweden

[2]Department of Radiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, 14186 Stockholm, Sweden

[3]Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm 17176, Sweden

关键词: Phantom;    Low tube voltage;    CT;    Pancreatic adenocarcinoma;   

Others  :  1091986
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2342-12-20

 received in 2012-03-19, accepted in 2012-07-24,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is associated with dismal prognosis. The detection of small pancreatic tumors which are still resectable is still a challenging problem.

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of decreasing the tube voltage from 120 to 80 kV on the detection of pancreatic tumors.

Methods

Three scanning protocols was used; one using the standard tube voltage (120 kV) and current (160 mA) and two using 80 kV but with different tube currents (500 and 675 mA) to achieve equivalent dose (15 mGy) and noise (15 HU) as that of the standard protocol.

Tumors were simulated into collected CT phantom images. The attenuation in normal parenchyma at 120 kV was set at 130 HU, as measured previously in clinical examinations, and the tumor attenuation was assumed to differ 20 HU and was set at 110HU. By scanning and measuring of iodine solution with different concentrations the corresponding tumor and parenchyma attenuation at 80 kV was found to be 185 and 219 HU, respectively.

To objectively evaluate the differences between the three protocols, a multi-reader multi-case receiver operating characteristic study was conducted, using three readers and 100 cases, each containing 0–3 lesions.

Results

The highest reader averaged figure-of-merit (FOM) was achieved for 80 kV and 675 mA (FOM = 0,850), and the lowest for 120 kV (FOM = 0,709). There was a significant difference between the three protocols (p < 0,0001), when making an analysis of variance (ANOVA). Post-hoc analysis (students t-test) shows that there was a significant difference between 120 and 80 kV, but not between the two levels of tube currents at 80 kV.

Conclusion

We conclude that when decreasing the tube voltage there is a significant improvement in tumor conspicuity.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Holm et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Wagner M, Redaelli C, Lietz M, Seiler CA, Friess H, Büchler HW: Curative resection is the single most important factor determining outcome in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg 2004, 91:586-594.
• [2]Garcea G, Dennison AR, Pattenden CJ, Neal CP, Sutton CD, Berry DP: Survival following curative resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. A systematic review of the literature. JOP 2008, 9:99-132.
• [3]Kinney T: Evidence-based imaging of pancreatic malignancies. Surg Clin North Am 2010, 90:235-249.
• [4]Pauls S, Sokiranski R, Schwarz M, Rieber A, Möller P, Brambs HJ: Value of spiral CT and MRI (1.5 T) in preoperative diagnosis of tumo rs of the head of the pancreas. Rontgenpraxis 2003, 55:3-15.
• [5]Bronstein YL, Loyer EM, Kaur H, Choir H, David C, DuBrow RA, Broemeling LD, Cleary KR, Charnsangavej C: Detection of small pancreatic tumors with multiphasic helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004, 182:619-623.
• [6]Fusari M, Maurea S, Imbriaco M, Mollica C, Avitabile G, Soscia F, Camera L, Salvatore M: Comparison between multislice CT and MR imaging in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with pancreatic masses. La Radiologia 2010, 115:453-466.
• [7]Tamm EP, Balachandran A, Bhosale PR, Katz MH, Fleming JB, Lee JH, Varadhachary GR: Imaging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: update on staging/resectability. Radiol Clin North Am 2012, 50:407-428.
• [8]Lu DS, Vedantham S, Krasny RM, Kadell B, Berger WL, Reber HA: Two-phase helical CT for pancreatic tumors: pancreatic versus hepatic phase enhancement of tumor, pancreas, and vascular structures. Radiology 1996, 199:697-701.
• [9]Prokesch RW, Chow LC, Beaulieu CF, Bammer R, Jeffrey B: Isoattenuating pancreatic adenocarcinoma at multi-detector row CT: secondary signs. Radiology 2002, 224:764-768.
• [10]Nakayama Y, Awai K, Funama Y, Hatemura M, Imuta M, Nakaura T, Ryu D, Morishita S, Sultana S, Sato N, Yamashita Y: Abdominal CT with low tube voltage: preliminary observations about radiation dose, contrast enhancement, image quality, and noise. Radiology 2005, 237:945-951.
• [11]Kim JE, Newman B: Evaluation of a radiation dose reduction strategy for pediatric chest CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010, 194:1188-1193.
• [12]Kim MJ, Park CH, Choi SJ, Hwang KH, Kim HS: Multidetector computed tomography chest examinations with low-kilovoltage protocols in adults: effect on image quality and radiation dose. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2009, 33:416-421.
• [13]Leschka S, Stolzmann P, Schmid FT, Scheffel H, Stinn B, Marincek B, Alkadhi H, Wildermuth S: Low kilovoltage cardiac dual-source CT: attenuation, noise, and radiation dose. Eur Radiol 2008, 18:1809-1817.
• [14]Feuchtner GM, Jodocy D, Klauser A, Haberfellner B, Aglan I, Spoeck A, Hiehs S, Soegner P, Jaschke W: Radiation dose reduction by using 100-kV tube voltage in cardiac 64-slice computed tomography. A comparative study. 2010, 75:51-56.
• [15]Szucs-Farkas Z, Kurmann L, Strautz T, Patak MA, Vock P, Schindera S: Patient exposure and image quality of low-dose pulmonary computed tomography angiography: comparison of 100- and 80-kVp protocols. Invest Radiol 2008, 43:871-876.
• [16]Schueller-Weidekamm C, Schaefer-Prokop CM, Weber M, Herold CJ, Prokop M: CT angiography of pulmonary arteries to detect pulmonary embolism: improvement of vascular enhancement with low kilovoltage settings. Radiology 2006, 241:899-907.
• [17]Sigal-Cinqualbre AB, Hennequin R, Abada HT, Chen X, Paul JF: Low-kilovoltage multi-detector row chest CT in adults: feasibility and effect on image quality and iodine dose. Radiology 2004, 231:169-174.
• [18]Schindera ST, Nelson RC, Mukundan S, Paulson EK, Jaffe TA, Miller CM, DeLong DM, Kawaji K, Yoshizumi TT, Samei E: Hypervascular liver tumors: low tube voltage, high tube current multi-detector row CT for enhanced detection--phantom study. Radiology 2008, 246:125-132.
• [19]Marin D, Nelson RC, Barnhart H, Schindera ST, Ho LM, Jaffe TA, Yoshizumi TT, Youngblood R, Samei E: Detection of pancreatic tumors, image quality, and radiation dose during the pancreatic parenchymal phase: effect of a low-tube-voltage, high-tube-current CT technique–preliminary results. Radiology 2010, 256:450-459.
• [20]Berthelet E, Liu M, Truong P, Czaykowski P, Kalach N, Yu C, Patterson K, Currie T, Kristensen S, Kwan W, Moravan V: CT slice index and thickness: impact on organ contouring in radiation treatment planning for prostate cancer. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2003, 4:365-373.
• [21]McNitt-Gray MF: AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Topics in CT. Radiation dose in CT. Radiographics 2002, 22:1541-1553.
• [22]Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE: Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 1992, 27:723-731.
• [23]Obuchowski NA: Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology. Radiology 2003, 229:3-8.
• [24]Lasko TA, Bhagwat JG, Zou KH, Ohno-Machado L: The use of receiver operating characteristic curves in biomedical informatics. J Biomed Inform 2005, 38:404-415.
• [25]Obuchowski NA, Beiden SV, Berbaum KS, Hillis SL, Ishwaran H, Song HH, Wagner RF: Multireader, multicase receiver operating characteristic analysis: an empirical comparison of five methods. Acad Radiol 2004, 11:980-995.
• [26]Metz CE: Receiver operating characteristic analysis: a tool for the quantitative evaluation of observer performance and imaging systems. J Am Coll Radiol 2006, 3:413-422.
• [27]Krejs GJ: Pancreatic cancer: epidemiology and risk factors. Dig Dis 2010, 28:355-358.