Low dose protocol for high resolution CT thorax: influence of matrix size and tube voltage on image quality and radiation dose

Navish Kumar; Abhimanyu Pradhan; Rajagopal Kadavigere; Suresh Sukumar

doi:10.12688/f1000research.110971.1

Home Browse Low dose protocol for high resolution CT thorax: influence of matrix...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Low dose protocol for high resolution CT thorax: influence of matrix size and tube voltage on image quality and radiation dose

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]

Navish Kumar¹, Abhimanyu Pradhan¹, Rajagopal Kadavigere², Suresh Sukumar ¹

PUBLISHED 06 Apr 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Department Medical Imaging Technology, Manipal College of Health Professions, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India
² Department of Radio-diagnosis & Imaging, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India

Navish Kumar
Roles: Data Curation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Abhimanyu Pradhan
Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing

Rajagopal Kadavigere
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation

Suresh Sukumar
Roles: Investigation, Methodology

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Manipal Academy of Higher Education gateway.

Abstract

Background: High-resolution CT (HRCT) thorax has increase demand due to its advantage in diagnosing chronic respiratory diseases. The feasibility of matrix size with different tube voltage in the HRCT protocol of thorax is unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effect of matrix sizes and tube voltage on image quality and radiation dose on adult HRCT thorax.
Methods: A Phantom experiment was performed, followed by a patient scan. For phantom and patient scan, a total of six protocols with two tube voltage settings, 120 kVp and 100 kVp, with a combination of three matrix sizes, 512, 768, and 1024 were used. In this study, 180 adult patients who had HRCT thorax scan were considered. Dose data was collected, and quantitative image analysis was performed by drawing region of interests on the acquired phantom and patient images. Qualitative image analysis was performed independently by two blinded radiologists.
Results: The dose report of the phantom experiment revealed that the 100kVp with selected matrix size delivered 15.64% and 15.62% less radiation dose in terms of volumetric computed tomography dose index (CTDIvol) and dose length product (DLP), respectively, compared to 120kVp settings with selected matrix sizes. Similarly, for the patient population, the CTDIvol and DLP difference noted for 120kVp and 100kVp with different matrix sizes was statistically significant (p<0.001). For quantitative image quality, the difference noted was also statistically significant among two kVp settings. The mean score for subjective image assessment was greater than 4.5 for diagnostic acceptability and streak artefacts.
Conclusion: The result suggests that the 100 kVp with 512 X 512 matrix size is preferable in the HRCT Lung to achieve the optimal diagnostic image quality with a reduction of almost 40% of the dose to the patients compared to 120 kVp techniques.

Keywords

HRCT thorax, low dose, dose reduction, matrix size, tube voltage

Corresponding author: Suresh Sukumar

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2022 Kumar N et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Kumar N, Pradhan A, Kadavigere R and Sukumar S. Low dose protocol for high resolution CT thorax: influence of matrix size and tube voltage on image quality and radiation dose [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2022, 11:399 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.110971.1) First published: 06 Apr 2022, 11:399 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.110971.1) Latest published: 06 Apr 2022, 11:399 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.110971.1)

Introduction

The prevalence of respiratory diseases in India is substantially high as per the recent global burden of disease survey data (Dandona et al., 2017). Chronic respiratory diseases, especially asthma and obstructive pulmonary disease, are of particular importance for having wide variations in morbidity and mortality in different Indian states (Salvi et al., 2018). Additionally, the novel COVID-19 outbreak declared by the World health organization (WHO) has increased the burden of respiratory disease in India as well as globally (Cucinotta & Vanelli, 2020; To et al., 2020). The outbreak of COVID-19 led to an increase in the demand for image modalities for the diagnosis of the disease. A chest radiograph plays a crucial role in diagnosing suspected respiratory diseases. High resolution computed tomography (HRCT) of the thorax is one such examination in high demand in routine use and for initial and rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia with the low rate of missed diagnosis (Kashyape & Jain, 2021; Li & Xia, 2020). Although reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the preferred tool for diagnosing novel COVID-19 infection, HRCT thorax has better sensitivity (Kalra, Homayounieh, Arru, Holmberg & Vassileva, 2020). The benefit of HRCT is not only limited to disease confirmation, but it plays a significant role in determining disease progression, treatment response, management, and decision on hospitalization and discharge of the COVID-19 patient through subsequent scans performed during these periods (Kalra et al., 2020; Rubin & Ryerson & Haramati, 2020; Azadbakht et al., 2021; Davarpanah et al., 2020).

The use of imaging modalities during the COVID-19 pandemic indeed has maximum benefit, but the fact that radiation exposure increases the risk of cancer should not be ignored. The linear-no threshold (LNT) model describes cancer risk even with a low dose of radiation (Shah, Sachs & Wilson, 2012; Mullenders, Atkinson, Paretzke, Sabatier & Bouffler, 2009). The risk of radiation-induced cancer during the pandemic is of concern, primarily due to the increase in COVID-19 infection and the need for multiple scans required during the recovery period of the disease (Wang, Liu, Yang & Chen, 2020). As recommended by International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the radiation dose delivered to the patient should be as low as reasonable achievable (ALARA) even during the pandemic, and the dose optimization for COVID-19 patients is necessary as there is no low dose HRCT protocol reported (Azadbakht et al., 2021; Yeung, 2019). There are several techniques to optimize the radiation dose for HRCT, such as reducing tube voltage, tube current, scan length, high pitch techniques, automatic exposure control (AEC), and iterative reconstruction techniques (Azadbakht et al., 2021). The feasibility of matrix size with different tube voltage in the HRCT protocol of thorax is unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effect of matrix sizes and tube voltage on image quality and radiation dose on adult HRCT thorax. The working hypothesis of this study was that the change in tube voltage could influence the image quality.

Methods

The study approval was obtained from the institutional ethics committee (IEC: 168/2019), Kasturba hospital, Manipal. The study was carried out in department of Radio-diagnosis and Imaging, Kasturba Hospital, Manipal. An experimental study was initially tested on Phantom to understand the influence of tube voltage and matrix size on the quality of the image and dose. The outcome of the results was then tested on the patient’s population.

Phantom study

This experiment was conducted in a 32 cm body CT polymethyl metacrylate (PMMA) phantom (Unfors, serial no. 0143) using an iCT (Philips Medical Systems) 128-row multiple slice CT scanner. The phantom was positioned on the CT table. The height of the phantom was adjusted using the position of laser light. The experiment was performed at two different tube voltage settings (120 kVp and 100 kVp) and three matrix sizes (512, 768 & 1024) available in the CT scanner (Table 1). All the other parameters, Reconstruction mode iDose4 level 2, collimation 64*0.625, gantry tilt of 0 degrees, the pitch of 1, rotation time: 0.5, slice thickness: 1 mm, reconstruction increment of 0.7500, a field of view (FOV) of 350 mm, and the adaptive filter were kept constant. The automatic tube current modulation was enabled during the procedure. An axial image with 1 mm thickness was obtained. Each protocol was scanned with a 130 mm scan length. Phantom CT image obtained using different parameters was analysed for dose and quantitative image quality. Signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise (CNR) ratios were analysed by drawing five regions-of-interest (ROIs) of 100 mm². Out of five ROIs, four were positioned in peripheral location (3, 6, 9, 12 o’clock) and one in the centre location of the phantom along with one ROI in the background to encompass homogeneity of measured regions (Figure 1).

Table 1. Protocol used to scan phantom and patient with various combination of kVP and matrix size.

Protocol	Tube voltage settings	Matrix size
A	120	512 × 512
B	120	768 × 768
C	120	1024 × 1024
D	100	512 × 512
E	100	768 × 768
F	100	1024 × 1024

Figure 1. Location of ROIs on CT PMMA phantom.

Study population

A total of 180 patients (Mean age 54.50 ±15.81, Male 55.06 ±17.15, Female 53.85±14.17) who were 18 years and above and prescribed for the HRCT Thorax were considered for this study (See Underlying data) (Sukumar, 2022). The written informed consent was obtained from the participant. All the scan was performed in iCT (Philips Medical Systems) 128-row multiple slice CT scanner with six different scanning protocol similar to phantom (Table 1). The automatic tube current modulation (Dose Right Index: 17) was enabled during the procedure.

After acquiring the image using a different protocol, the subjective image assessment of the patient’s population was performed according to the European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for CT (Menzel et al., 2000). Two radiologists with a mean experience of 12.00 ± 1.41 years, reviewed images independently. The radiologists were blinded to the scanning protocols and the procedure. Images were displayed in the HRCT window (-600 WL, 1600 WL) on an Advantage Workstation (Philips Healthcare). Radiologists’ evaluation for the diagnostically acceptable image quality for HRCT thorax was considered (See Underlying data) (Sukumar, 2022). The diagnostic acceptability of the image quality was rated on five-point rating scale were, 1 = poor for diagnosis, 2 = suboptimal for diagnosis, 3 = good for diagnosis, 4 = very good for diagnosis, 5 = excellently. The streak artefacts seen anywhere on the CT image was rated on a five-point rating scale, were 1= artefact causing diagnosis impossible, 2 = artefacts affecting diagnostic information, 3 = major artefacts affecting visualization of major structures but diagnosis still possible, 4 = minor artefacts not interfering with diagnostic decision-making, and 5 = no artefacts.

The quantitative image quality assessment was assessed by drawing 100 mm² ROIs on high density structures of thorax, such as subscapularis muscle, ascending aorta, and descending aorta (See Underlying data) (Sukumar, 2022) (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Location of ROIs on (a) subscapularis muscle, (b) ascending aorta, (c) descending aorta and (d) background for quantitative image quality assessment in HRCT thorax.

The SNR, CNR, and Figure of Merit (FOM) ratios for the phantom and the participant population were analysed by the following equation (Chang, Hsu, Lin & Hsu, 2017) (See Underlying data) (Sukumar, 2022).

SNR = ({CT}_{ROI}) / {SD}_{ROI}

CNR = ({CT}_{ROI} - {CT}_{Background}) / {SD}_{Background}

FOM = {CNR}^{2} / {CTDI}_{vol}

Where CT_ROI and CT_Background are the average Hounsfield unit of the corresponding ROI, and SD_ROI and SD_Background are the standard deviations of the corresponding ROI.

The dose data (CTDI_vol and DLP) for both phantom study and patient population study were collected from the dose info of the system. For the study population the obtained DLP was further used to calculate the effective dose by multiplying with a conversion factor of 0.014 (Deak, Smal & Kalender, 2010) (See Underlying data) (Sukumar, 2022).

Statistical analysis

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Statistics for Windows, Version 16 (Kumar, Pai & Vineetha, 2020) was used to perform the statistical analysis. For the study population the obtained data were not normally distributed. Therefore, the median and quartiles are reported, and for comparison of quantitative image analysis and dose matrix, Mann Whitney U (Kumar, Pai & Vineetha, 2020) test was performed. Mean score for each protocol was calculated for subjective image assessment. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Quantitative image analysis of phantom image

The influence of various combinations of tube voltage (120 and 100 kVp) and matrix size (512, 768 and 1024) on image quality (SNR and CNR) and dose matrix (CTDI_vol and DLP) are summarized in Table 2. The difference noted (in percentage) when comparing different protocols are outlined in Table 3. In this study, the phantom was scanned with two tube voltage techniques combined with three different matrix sizes (a total of six scanning protocols). When comparing the image quality of 120 kVp with various matrix sizes, protocol A showed the highest values compared to protocols B and C. The dose changes noted were very minimal.

Table 2. Comparison of 120 kVp and 100kVp on image matrix size of 512, 768 and 1024: Phantom experiment.

Protocol	A	B	C	D	E	F
Tube voltage	120			100
Matrix size (Mean)	512	768	1024	512	768	1024
SNR (Mean)	0.91	0.70	0.74	0.84	0.60	0.55
CNR (Mean)	21.15	8.75	9.92	16.65	10.09	9.07
CTDI_vol (mGy) (Mean)	23.22	23.22	22.11	19.85	19.85	19.85
DLP (mGy^*cm) (Mean)	346.18	346.18	329.20	296.00	296.00	296.00

Table 3. Table showing the percentage of difference in SNR, CNR, CTDI and DLP when comparing with different groups of protocol.

Protocol comparison	Difference in %
Protocol comparison	SNR	CNR	CTDI	DLP
A vs B	26.08	82.94	0	0
A vs C	20.60	72.28	4.89	5.02
A vs D	8	23.80	15.64	15.62
A vs E	41.05	70.80	15.64	15.62
A vs F	49.31	79.94	15.64	15.62
B vs C	5.55	12.53	4.89	5.02
B vs D	18.18	62.65	15.64	15.62
B vs E	15.38	14.22	15.64	15.62
B vs F	24	3.59	15.64	15.62
C vs D	12.65	50.65	15.64	10.62
C vs E	20.89	1.69	15.64	10.62
C vs F	29.45	8.95	15.64	10.62
D vs E	33.33	49.06	0	0
D vs F	41.72	58.94	0	0
E vs F	8.69	10.09	0	0

Similarly, when comparing the image quality of 100 kVp with various matrix sizes, protocol D showed higher values than protocol E and protocol F, and no changes were noted in terms of dose matrix (Table 2). The result of the phantom study showed that, as the matrix size increases, the SNR and CNR decreases, except for the case of protocol C, where the SNR and CNR values were slightly higher than protocol B. Therefore, when comparing the image quality of the 120 kVp technique and 100 kVp technique with various matrix sizes, the matrix size of 512 (protocol A and protocol D) produced better image quality than another matrix size. When comparing among two tube voltages with the same matrix size of 512 (protocol A and protocol D), protocol A showed better result than protocol D when considering image quality where the difference (in percentage) among these two protocols for SNR and CNR was 8% and 23.80% respectively, which is minimal as compared to the difference of other protocol (Table 3). However, the difference noted in CTDI_vol and DLP among these two protocols was 15.64% and 15.62%, respectively (Table 3), which shows that 100 kVp techniques have reduced radiation dose.

Quantitative image analysis of patient population

Similar to the phantom study, the influence of tube voltage and matrix size on image quality and radiation dose was performed in the patient population. The collected patient data were not normally distributed. Hence the median and quartiles for image quality (SNR and CNR), radiation dose matrix (CTDI_vol and DLP), and Figure of merit (FOM) are summarized in Table 4. The statistically significant value (p<0.05) for comparison of median among various protocols are outlined in Table 5.

Table 4. Comparison of 120 kVp and 100kVp on image matrix size of 512, 768 and 1024: patient’s population.

Protocol	A	B	C	D	E	F
Tube voltage	120 kVp			100 kVp
Matrix	512	768	1024	512	768	1024
Age mean	55.16±18.08	56.20±10.63	53.03±13.68	57.40±13.97	47.10±18.24	58.13±17.42
mA mean	112.50±2.09	115.43±9.18	113.80±5.08	122.43±11.49	126.70±13.60	124.96±12.82
SNR Median (Q1,Q3)	0.99 (0.76, 1.14)	0.64 (0.53, 0.77)	0.63 (0.49, 0.78)	0.63 (0.51, 0.74)	0.44 (0.38, 0.55)	0.46 (0.35, 0.61)
CNR Median (Q1,Q3)	49.99 (42.47, 61.42)	38.21 (29.85,42.83)	30.83 (23.57,36.60)	32.37 (26.94, 41.38)	25.03 (20.99, 29.37)	23.55 (20.08, 27.82)
FOM Median (Q1,Q3)	274.06 (196.21,398.74)	144.39 (93.49,202.06)	103.56 (60.84, 146.88)	189.34 (119.07, 291.3)	97.50 (67.80, 151.52)	95.43 (64.31, 134.31)
CTDI (mGy) Median (Q1,Q3)	9.15 (9.07, 39.24)	9.15 (9.08, 9.30)	9.16 (9.08, 9.32)	5.68 (5.49, 6.20)	5.99 (5.60, 6.53)	5.90 (5.56, 6.53)
DLP (mGy-cm) Median (Q1,Q3)	362.53 (340.80, 384.05)	352.02 (332.15, 372.25)	372.75 (355.52, 387.92)	223.27 (198.56, 247.48)	237.39 (213.75, 272.34)	234.58 (220.01, 254.48)
Effective dose (mSv)	5.07	4.92	5.21	3.12	3.32	3.28

Table 5. Table showing the p-values of quantitative image quality, dose matrix and figure of merit when comparing with different groups of protocol.

Protocols comparison	p-value
Protocols comparison	CTDI	DLP	SNR	CNR	FOM
A vs B	0.567	0.196	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	<0.001^*
A vs C	0.267	0.395	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	<0.001^*
A vs D	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	0.003^*
A vs E	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	<0.001^*
A vs F	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	<0.001^*
B vs C	0.756	0.030^*	0.773	<0.012^*	0.034^*
B vs D	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	0.641	0.255	0.067
B vs E	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	0.033^*
B vs F	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	0.038^*
C vs D	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	0.953	0.255	<0.001^*
C vs E	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	0.007^*	0.906
C vs F	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	0.001^*	0.004^*	0.796
D vs E	0.110	0.156	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	<0.001^*
D vs F	0.387	0.171	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	<0.001^*
E vs F	0.549	0.756	0.976	0.745	0.859

* Statistical significant (p<0.05).

When comparing the image quality of 120 kVp technique (standard dose) with three different matrix size, protocol A showed highest value when compared with protocol B and protocol C. The difference noted was statistically significant between protocol A and protocol B, and protocol A and protocol C but for protocol B and protocol C, difference in SNR was not statistically significance whereas CNR was statistically significance. There was no difference noted for radiation dose when comparing within the protocols, except for the protocol B and protocol C where DLP showed statistical significance difference and FOM showed significant difference for all the comparisons (Table 5). For 100 kVp technique (low dose), the result was in line with 120 kVp techniques, that is protocol D showed highest value in terms of image quality when compared with protocol E and protocol F, and the difference noted were statistically significant for all the comparison except for protocol E and protocol F. Similarly, there were no statistical difference noted in radiation dose matrix and FOM for all the comparisons except for comparison between protocol E and protocol F (Table 5). The overall result showed that, with the increase in matrix size, the SNR, CNR, and FOM decrease for both standard 120 kVp and a low dose of 100 kVp techniques (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Effect of tube voltage and matrix size on (a) SNR, (b) CNR, and (c) FOM.

The image quality for 512 × 512 matrix size with tube voltage settings of 120 kVp showed superior quality as compared to other combinations of tube voltage and matrix size, but when radiation dose was considered, the dose for 120 kVp with 512 matrix size (protocol A) was significantly higher than 100 kVp with 512 matrix size (protocol D) and other combinations (Table 5). Nevertheless, the mean score for the subjective image assessment did not indicate a preference for any of the protocols in terms of diagnostic acceptability or streak artefacts (Table 6).

Table 6. Table showing the mean score for subjective image assessment.

Protocol	Mean score
Protocol	Diagnostic acceptability	Streak artefacts
A	4.86 ± 0.22	4.78 ± 0.25
B	4.95 ± 0.15	4.93 ± 0.17
C	4.76 ± 0.28	4.65 ± 0.32
D	4.65 ± 0.35	4.60 ± 0.35
E	4.75 ± 0.34	4.63 ± 0.36
F	4.61 ± 0.33	4.60 ± 0.33

Discussion

The radiation dose in the HRCT thorax is high compared to the conventional lung imaging and exceeds 100 times the radiation dose of the Chest X-ray (Ambrosino, Genieser, Roche, Kaul & Lawrence, 1994). Hence, optimising radiation dose and diagnostic accuracy of obtaining HRCT images is essential. The result of the present study state that with the use of a low dose, that is 100 kVp with the combination of 512×512 matrix size, the radiation dose to the patient can be reduced without compromising image quality.

The present study's findings on the effect of matrix size were limited to quantitative image quality, and no significant difference was noted on radiation dose. The result of the study revealed that the increase in matrix size decreased the SNR and CNR values, leading to noisier images for higher matrix size images. Similarly, Hata et al. (2018) reported the increase in noise and streak artefacts with larger matrix size, which reduces the application of larger matrix size in CT. Although the matrix size influences the spatial resolution of the image, increasing the matrix size seldom makes the spatial resolution better since the system's spatial resolution usually depends on the focal spot size of the X-ray tube and the size of the detector elements (Hata et al., 2018). Also, the data size of the acquired images is larger with high matrix size images. Therefore, using a smaller matrix size, the images of HRCT thorax can be achieved without compromising spatial resolution.

In this study, the influence of tube voltage on image quality and radiation dose was analysed and revealed that using a low tube voltage of 100 kVp significantly reduced the radiation dose compared to 120 kVp. When comparing the effect of tube voltage along with matrix size, the study revealed that low tube voltage with low matrix size could achieve images without compromising diagnostic confidence. The institute protocol for HRCT thorax uses 120 kVp with 728 × 728 matrix size as a standard protocol. Compared with a low dose protocol of 100 kVp with a lower matrix size of 512 × 512, a significant reduction in radiation dose was achieved with no significant changes noted in quantitative image quality (Protocol B and D, Table 5). However, reducing the tube voltage below 100 kVp can be beneficial if it is tailored with patient weight, as reported by Desmet J. et al. (2021), where they used 80kVp for the patient weighing below 50 kg.

The effect of tube current on image quality and radiation dose was not performed in the present study as the protocol make use of automatic tube current modulation, which modulates the tube current according to the patient size. Although the radiation dose decreases linearly with the reduction of tube current but has limited use in HRCT as reducing tube current reduces the resolution of the images (Azadbakht et al., 2021; Karabulut, Törü, Gelebek, Gülsün & Ariyürek, 2002). However, this can be overcome with the recent advancement in the reconstruction techniques, where filtered back projection (FBP) is being widely replaced by iterative reconstruction (IR) (Honda et al., 2011). Literature reports that the use of low tube current with the combination of IR, such as Model-based Iterative Reconstruction (MBIR) and Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction (ASIR), can improve the compromised image quality due to the result of reduced tube current (Yanagawa et al., 2014; Katsura et al., 2012; Tsukada et al., 2016). However, selecting the lowest possible tube current settings has benefited only over the selective examination, and it decreases the detectability of low-contrast details (Karabulut et al., 2002; Neroladaki, Botsikas, Boudabbous, Becker & Montet, 2013). Therefore, it is preferred to use automatic tube current modulation for HRCT thorax.

The low dose HRCT thorax protocol with 100 kVp and 512 × 512 matrix can be recommended for COVID-19 patients. However, according to the webinar by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on CT practices and dose optimization, it was suggested to use HRCT thorax to diagnose COVID-19 only when the availability of RT-PCR is limited (Kalra et al., 2020). Nevertheless, the use of HRCT thorax has several benefits when assessing disease progression and management of COVID-19 patients (Davarpanah et al., 2020; Rubin et al., 2020). Also, there is an increasing demand for repeat scans for the patient with comorbidities, for the recovered individuals in evaluating pulmonary complications, and for research purposes (Mahdavi et al., 2020).

The current study has a few Limitations. The present study was focused on SNR, CNR, and FOM. The correlation between the dose and quality of the image based on Body Mass Index (BMI) and chest circumference was not reported. The overall subjective diagnostic acceptability of the lung was reported. The visibility of the nodule, Broncho vascular bundle thickening, interlobular reticulation, and bronchiectasis was not reported individually.

Conclusion

This study showed that 120 kVp with 512 × 512 matrix size produces superior image quality than 100 kVp techniques. However, the tube voltage of 100 kVp with the matrix size of 512 × 512 reduced almost 40% of radiation dose compared to 120 kVp techniques. Therefore, 100 kVp with 512 × 512 matrix size can be preferred for HRCT adult lung to achieve the optimal diagnostic image quality. This low dose protocol may be well adapted for the patients requiring routine HRCT and follow-up examination.

Data availability

Underlying data

Harvard Dataverse: Low dose protocol for high resolution CT thorax: influence of matrix size and tube voltage on image quality and radiation dose.

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/P3BL0F (Sukumar, 2022)

This project contains the following underlying data:

que 1(B). (Ratings for diagnostic acceptability of the image quality)

que 1(E1-R2). (Combined ratings of two radiologists for diagnostic acceptability of the image quality)

que 2(B). (Ratings for streak artefacts seen on image)

que 2(R1-R2). (Combined ratings of two radiologists for streak artefacts seen on image)

ROI. (Quantitative values)

SNR, CNR. (Demographic details, radiation dose value and SNR and CNR values)

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Author contributions

All the authors have substantially contributed to the conception or design of the work. Data collection: Navish Kumar, Data analysis and Interpretation: Rajagopal Kadavigere and Abhimanyu Pradhan, drafting of article: Abhimanyu Pradhan and Suresh Sukumar, Critical Revision of the article: Suresh Sukumar and Rajagopal Kadavigere, Final Approval of the version to be published: Rajagopal Kadavigere.

References

Ambrosino MM, Genieser NB, Roche KJ, et al.: Feasibility of high-resolution, low-dose chest CT in evaluating the pediatric chest. Pediatr. Radiol. 1994; 24(1): 6–10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Azadbakht J, Khoramian D, Lajevardi ZS, et al.: A review on chest CT scanning parameters implemented in COVID-19 patients: bringing low-dose CT protocols into play. Egypt. J. Radiol. Nucl. Med. 2021; 52(1): 1–10. Publisher Full Text
Chang KP, Hsu TK, Lin WT, et al.: Optimization of dose and image quality in adult and pediatric computed tomography scans. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 2017; 140(January): 260–265. Publisher Full Text
Cucinotta D, Vanelli M: WHO declares COVID-19 a pandemic. Acta. Biomedica. 2020; 91(1): 157–160. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Dandona L, Dandona R, Kumar GA, et al.: Nations within a nation: variations in epidemiological transition across the states of India, 1990–2016 in the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2017; 390(10111): 2437–2460. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Davarpanah AH, Mahdavi A, Sabri A, et al.: Novel Screening and Triage Strategy in Iran During Deadly Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Epidemic: Value of Humanitarian Teleconsultation Service. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2020; 17(6): 734–738. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA: Multisection CT Protocols: Sex- and Age-specifi c Conversion Dose from Dose-Length Product 1 Purpose: Methods: Results: Conclusion. Radiology. 2010; 257(1): 158–166. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Desmet J, Biebaû C, De Wever W, et al.: Performance of low-dose chest CT as a triage tool for suspected COVID-19 patients. J. Belg. Soc. Radiol. 2021; 105(1): 1–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Hata A, Yanagawa M, Honda O, et al.: Effect of Matrix Size on the Image Quality of Ultra-high-resolution CT of the Lung: Comparison of 512 × 512, 1024 × 1024, and 2048 × 2048. Acad. Radiol. 2018; 25(7): 869–876. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Honda O, Yanagawa M, Inoue A, et al.: Image quality of multiplanar reconstruction of pulmonary CT scans using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. Br. J. Radiol. 2011; 84(1000): 335–341. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Kalra MK, Homayounieh F, Arru C, et al.: Chest CT practice and protocols for COVID-19 from radiation dose management perspective. Eur. Radiol. 2020; 30(12): 6554–6560. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Karabulut N, Törü M, Gelebek V, et al.: Comparison of low-dose and standard-dose helical CT in the evaluation of pulmonary nodules. Eur. Radiol. 2002; 12(11): 2764–2769. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Kashyape R, Jain R: The utility of HRCT in the initial diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia-An Indian perspective. Indian J. Radiol. Imaging. 2021; 31(5): S178–S181. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Katsura M, Matsuda I, Akahane M, et al.: Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: Comparison with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Eur. Radiol. 2012; 22(8): 1613–1623. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Kumar M, Pai KM, Vineetha R: Occupation-related musculoskeletal disorders among dental professionals. Med. Pharm. Rep. 2020; 93(4): 405–409. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Li Y, Xia L: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Role of chest CT in diagnosis and management. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2020; 214(6): 1280–1286. Publisher Full Text
Mahdavi A, Haseli S, Mahdavi A, et al.: The role of repeat chest CT scan in the COVID-19 Pandemic. Acad. Radiol. 2020; 27(7): 1049–1050. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Menzel HG, Schibilla H, Teunen D: European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Luxembourg: European Commission; 2000; 16262.
Mullenders L, Atkinson M, Paretzke H, et al.: Assessing cancer risks of low-dose radiation. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2009; 9(8): 596–604. Publisher Full Text
Neroladaki A, Botsikas D, Boudabbous S, et al.: Computed tomography of the chest with model-based iterative reconstruction using a radiation exposure similar to chest X-ray examination: Preliminary observations. Eur. Radiol. 2013; 23(2): 360–366. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Rubin GD, Ryerson CJ, Haramati LB, et al.: The Role of Chest Imaging in Patient Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multinational Consensus Statement From the Fleischner Society. Chest. 2020; 158(1): 106–116. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Salvi S, Kumar GA, Dhaliwal RS, et al.: The burden of chronic respiratory diseases and their heterogeneity across the states of India: the Global Burden of Disease Study 1990–2016. Lancet Glob. Health. 2018; 6(12): e1363–e1374. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Shah DJ, Sachs RK, Wilson DJ: Radiation-induced cancer: A modern view. Br. J. Radiol. 2012; 85(1020): e1166–e1173. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Sukumar S: Low dose protocol for high resolution CT thorax: influence of matrix size and tube voltage on image quality and radiation dose.2022. Harvard Dataverse, V1. Publisher Full Text
To T, Viegi G, Cruz A, et al.: A global respiratory perspective on the COVID-19 pandemic: Commentary and action proposals. Eur. Respir. J. 2020; 56(1): 2001704. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Tsukada J, Yamada M, Yamada Y, et al.: Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of FBP, ASiR, and MBIR reconstruction during CT angiography in the evaluation of a vessel phantom with calcified stenosis in a distal superficial femoral artery in a cadaver extremity. Medicine (United States). 2016; 95(27): e4127. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Wang YXJ, Liu W-H, Yang M, et al.: The role of CT for Covid-19 patient’s management remains poorly defined. Ann. Transl. Med. 2020; 8(4): 145–145. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Yanagawa M, Gyobu T, Leung AN, et al.: Ultra-low-dose CT of the Lung. Effect of Iterative Reconstruction Techniques on Image Quality. Acad. Radiol. 2014; 21(6): 695–703. Publisher Full Text
Yeung AWK: The “as Low As Reasonably Achievable” (ALARA) principle: A brief historical overview and a bibliometric analysis of the most cited publications. Radioprotection. 2019; 54(2): 103–109. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 06 Apr 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Department Medical Imaging Technology, Manipal College of Health Professions, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India
² Department of Radio-diagnosis & Imaging, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India

Navish Kumar
Roles: Data Curation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Abhimanyu Pradhan
Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing

Rajagopal Kadavigere
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation

Suresh Sukumar
Roles: Investigation, Methodology

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 06 Apr 2022, 11:399

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.110971.1

Copyright

© 2022 Kumar N et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Kumar N, Pradhan A, Kadavigere R and Sukumar S. Low dose protocol for high resolution CT thorax: influence of matrix size and tube voltage on image quality and radiation dose [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2022, 11:399 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.110971.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 06 Apr 2022

Views

4

Reviewer Report 13 Sep 2024

Kai Mei, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.122637.r181026

This paper is relatively well written, and the study was adequately well performed. The main problem of this paper is the motivation of design.

The only parameters in a CT protocol that affect radiation dose are tube ... Continue reading

This paper is relatively well written, and the study was adequately well performed. The main problem of this paper is the motivation of design.

The only parameters in a CT protocol that affect radiation dose are tube voltage, tube current, rotation speed and helical pitch. Matrix size has no effect on radiation dose and has minimal effect on diagnosis quality, compared to reconstruction filter: radiologist can always opt to sharper filters.

The tuning of tube voltage is mostly determined by the nature of the examination and the property of the X-ray source of that CT scanner, it is not used as a mean to reduce radiation dose. Tube voltage changes the contrast of the CT image, so specific examinations need to be done in specific tube voltage.

In addition, the matrix size is not really relevant in dose studies. It only changes how you store the patient data. There are so much more other ways to enhance the diagnosis quality (from reconstruction filters to post extrapolations in the DICOM viewer), when the matrix size is limited.

The current topic of this manuscript lacks interest in CT research fields and I would recommend the author to redesign the study to compare with pitch, scanning speed and tube current etc. instead.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: CT researcher for over 8 years. CT reconstruction, multi-energy CT, reconstruction algorithms, clinical CT protocols, CT dose reduction, low-dose CT algorithms.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

11

Reviewer Report 07 Jul 2023

Pierre-Antoine Rodesch, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.122637.r181038

The authors are studying the optimization of the dose in the frame of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) thorax imaging. Given the advances in iterative reconstruction (IR), new possibilities to lower the dose and increase the diagnostic score can be investigated. ... Continue reading

The authors are studying the optimization of the dose in the frame of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) thorax imaging. Given the advances in iterative reconstruction (IR), new possibilities to lower the dose and increase the diagnostic score can be investigated. Indeed, IR can compensate for the noise increase at lower doses. One possibility to lower the dose while maintaining the same image quality is to use a different source voltage. Here, the authors investigate two different voltages (100 and 120 kVp). In order to increase the diagnostic score, the authors study three different matrix sizes (512, 718 and 1024) to increase the spatial resolution. The combination of different voltages and matrix size are also studied to provide 6 different protocols. The authors use phantom data and a large cohort of patients to compare the 6 protocols. This represents enough data to make the work relevant and make recommendations.

The work is rigorously written and relevant to the field. The context and objective are nicely described and very actual with appropriate citations.

However, I would have designed the methodology differently, especially on the phantom acquisition. It would be more interesting to be able to have cases with the same dose, or the same noise, or the same CNR, which is not the case for any combination of protocols. Here the authors present an increased CNR and diagnostic score for a higher dose, which is predictable and can not be used to draw conclusions.

As the matrix size increases, the noise increases as well. The IDose level should be increased for the 718 and 1024 cases to match the noise level.
As the voltage decreases, the contrast is expected to increase, and it would be possible to increase the IDose level as well to match the CNR. (The other possibility would be to increase the current to match the dose).

In table 2, instead of the SNR, the noise and contrast value would be more relevant to highlight the noise and contrast differences.

In table 3, it would be easier to present the results in a different way: by identifying the lowest value and calculate all percentages in comparison to the latter.

Table 4 and Figure 3 are redundant, I think you could only keep Figure 3 and would include the scores (Table 6) in this figure. Why is there no p-values computed for the scores?

Form Table 6, we conclude that Protocol B is the best, but you recommend protocol D, it is not clear why: why not recommending protocol E? I understand that redoing the patient acquisitions/reconstructions is not feasible. But to support your affirmation, you will need to provide more results. Could you calculate a normalized diagnostic score by dividing it by the dose, in a similar way as the FOM? Could you also provide the percentage of cases for each protocol that presented a score lower than 4 (or 4.5?) and so would not be acceptable? Please elaborate the discussion.

Minor comments:

I am not sure using A, B, C, D, E and F is the best way to refer to each protocol, you should use 120/512, 120/718, etc… It does not take more space and help to facilitate the comprehension.
In the abstract you don’t mention the FOV, which is important when the matrix size varies.
In this abstract sentence “For quantitative image quality, the difference noted was also statistically significant among two kVp settings.”, I don’t understand which kVp performs the best.
In material and methods, you don’t indicate the exposure (mAs) parameter in either phantom or patient acquisition.
In material and methods, you don’t explain the different patient groups: I was expecting to reconstruct each patient with 3 different matrix size but that was not the case, right? (Only one matrix size per patient?)
You could also mention photon-counting CT that could reduce further the dose of innovative denoising techniques such as deep learning methods.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

No
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: medical CT imaging, image quality metrics, thorax imaging, photon-counting CT.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

31

Reviewer Report 28 Apr 2022

Rahul P. Kotian, Medical Imaging Sciences, Gulf Medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.122637.r130052

This paper reports India's National CT radiation dose and image quality related to HRCT Thorax scans. I think this is an important work that might motivate other "smaller" countries to do similar initiatives. Therefore I find it relevant and good ... Continue reading

This paper reports India's National CT radiation dose and image quality related to HRCT Thorax scans. I think this is an important work that might motivate other "smaller" countries to do similar initiatives. Therefore I find it relevant and good to index(even if it is not the newest thing in the world scenario related to CT radiation dose). The paper is well written, the introduction section is crisp and addresses the current scenario of radiation dose and image quality in HRCT with different matrix combinations. The materials and methods section clearly defines the steps taken in data collection using a 32cm body phantom. Lastly, the results obtained are valuable and should be utilized as a routine imaging protocol to obtain optimum image quality with significant dose reduction in HRCT Thorax scans.

It would add value and improve the visibility of the current manuscript if the authors decide to cite the following high impact articles published in the area of CT Dose reduction and image quality:

Rawashdeh M, McEntee M, Zaitoun M, et al. Knowledge and practice of computed tomography exposure parameters amongst radiographers in Jordan.¹
Mohamad F, Lina K, Ghida A, et al. National diagnostic reference levels have a lot of potential but a long way to go. A systematic review on the current status of adult diagnostic reference levels in head, chest and abdominopelvic Computed Tomography ²
Rawashdeh M, Abdelrahman M, Zaitoun M, et al. Diagnostic reference levels for paediatric CT in Jordan. ³
Rawashdeh M, Saade C, Zaitoun M, et al. Establishment of diagnostic reference levels in cardiac computed tomography.⁴
Rawashdeh, M, Saade C. Radiation dose reduction considerations and imaging patterns of ground glass opacities in coronavirus: risk of over exposure in computed tomography. ⁴
El-Merhi F, Mohamad M, Haydar A, et al. Qualitative and quantitative radiological analysis of non-contrast CT is a strong indicator in patients with acute pyelonephritis. ⁵

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

1. Rawashdeh M, McEntee M, Zaitoun M, Abdelrahman M, et al.: Knowledge and practice of computed tomography exposure parameters amongst radiographers in Jordan. Computers in Biology and Medicine. 2018; 102: 132-137 Publisher Full Text
2. Awad MF, Karout L, Arnous G, Rawashdeh MA, et al.: A systematic review on the current status of adult diagnostic reference levels in head, chest and abdominopelvic Computed Tomography.J Radiol Prot. 2020; 40 (3): R71-R98 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Rawashdeh M, Abdelrahman M, Zaitoun M, Saade C, et al.: Diagnostic reference levels for paediatric CT in Jordan.J Radiol Prot. 2019; 39 (4): 1060-1073 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Rawashdeh M, Saade C, Zaitoun M, Abdelrahman M, et al.: Establishment of diagnostic reference levels in cardiac computed tomography.J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019; 20 (10): 181-186 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Rawashdeh MA, Saade C: Radiation dose reduction considerations and imaging patterns of ground glass opacities in coronavirus: risk of over exposure in computed tomography.Radiol Med. 2021; 126 (3): 380-387 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. El-Merhi F, Mohamad M, Haydar A, Naffaa L, et al.: Qualitative and quantitative radiological analysis of non-contrast CT is a strong indicator in patients with acute pyelonephritis.Am J Emerg Med. 2018; 36 (4): 589-593 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: MRI, Fractional Anisotropy, Diffusion tensor imaging, Parkinson’s Disease, Computed Tomography Radiation Dose, Computed Tomography

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 06 Apr 2022

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 1 06 Apr 22	read	read	read

Rahul P. Kotian, Gulf Medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates
Pierre-Antoine Rodesch, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada
Kai Mei, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

4 Views

13 Sep 2024 | for Version 1

Kai Mei, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

4 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Not Approved

This paper is relatively well written, and the study was adequately well performed. The main problem of this paper is the motivation of design.

The only parameters in a CT protocol that affect radiation dose are tube voltage, tube current, rotation speed and helical pitch. Matrix size has no effect on radiation dose and has minimal effect on diagnosis quality, compared to reconstruction filter: radiologist can always opt to sharper filters.

The tuning of tube voltage is mostly determined by the nature of the examination and the property of the X-ray source of that CT scanner, it is not used as a mean to reduce radiation dose. Tube voltage changes the contrast of the CT image, so specific examinations need to be done in specific tube voltage.

In addition, the matrix size is not really relevant in dose studies. It only changes how you store the patient data. There are so much more other ways to enhance the diagnosis quality (from reconstruction filters to post extrapolations in the DICOM viewer), when the matrix size is limited.

The current topic of this manuscript lacks interest in CT research fields and I would recommend the author to redesign the study to compare with pitch, scanning speed and tube current etc. instead.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

CT researcher for over 8 years. CT reconstruction, multi-energy CT, reconstruction algorithms, clinical CT protocols, CT dose reduction, low-dose CT algorithms.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

11 Views

07 Jul 2023 | for Version 1

Pierre-Antoine Rodesch, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

11 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

The authors are studying the optimization of the dose in the frame of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) thorax imaging. Given the advances in iterative reconstruction (IR), new possibilities to lower the dose and increase the diagnostic score can be investigated. Indeed, IR can compensate for the noise increase at lower doses. One possibility to lower the dose while maintaining the same image quality is to use a different source voltage. Here, the authors investigate two different voltages (100 and 120 kVp). In order to increase the diagnostic score, the authors study three different matrix sizes (512, 718 and 1024) to increase the spatial resolution. The combination of different voltages and matrix size are also studied to provide 6 different protocols. The authors use phantom data and a large cohort of patients to compare the 6 protocols. This represents enough data to make the work relevant and make recommendations.

The work is rigorously written and relevant to the field. The context and objective are nicely described and very actual with appropriate citations.

However, I would have designed the methodology differently, especially on the phantom acquisition. It would be more interesting to be able to have cases with the same dose, or the same noise, or the same CNR, which is not the case for any combination of protocols. Here the authors present an increased CNR and diagnostic score for a higher dose, which is predictable and can not be used to draw conclusions.

As the matrix size increases, the noise increases as well. The IDose level should be increased for the 718 and 1024 cases to match the noise level.
As the voltage decreases, the contrast is expected to increase, and it would be possible to increase the IDose level as well to match the CNR. (The other possibility would be to increase the current to match the dose).

In table 2, instead of the SNR, the noise and contrast value would be more relevant to highlight the noise and contrast differences.

In table 3, it would be easier to present the results in a different way: by identifying the lowest value and calculate all percentages in comparison to the latter.

Table 4 and Figure 3 are redundant, I think you could only keep Figure 3 and would include the scores (Table 6) in this figure. Why is there no p-values computed for the scores?

Form Table 6, we conclude that Protocol B is the best, but you recommend protocol D, it is not clear why: why not recommending protocol E? I understand that redoing the patient acquisitions/reconstructions is not feasible. But to support your affirmation, you will need to provide more results. Could you calculate a normalized diagnostic score by dividing it by the dose, in a similar way as the FOM? Could you also provide the percentage of cases for each protocol that presented a score lower than 4 (or 4.5?) and so would not be acceptable? Please elaborate the discussion.

Minor comments:

I am not sure using A, B, C, D, E and F is the best way to refer to each protocol, you should use 120/512, 120/718, etc… It does not take more space and help to facilitate the comprehension.
In the abstract you don’t mention the FOV, which is important when the matrix size varies.
In this abstract sentence “For quantitative image quality, the difference noted was also statistically significant among two kVp settings.”, I don’t understand which kVp performs the best.
In material and methods, you don’t indicate the exposure (mAs) parameter in either phantom or patient acquisition.
In material and methods, you don’t explain the different patient groups: I was expecting to reconstruct each patient with 3 different matrix size but that was not the case, right? (Only one matrix size per patient?)
You could also mention photon-counting CT that could reduce further the dose of innovative denoising techniques such as deep learning methods.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

No
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

medical CT imaging, image quality metrics, thorax imaging, photon-counting CT.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

31 Views

28 Apr 2022 | for Version 1

Rahul P. Kotian, Medical Imaging Sciences, Gulf Medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates

31 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

This paper reports India's National CT radiation dose and image quality related to HRCT Thorax scans. I think this is an important work that might motivate other "smaller" countries to do similar initiatives. Therefore I find it relevant and good to index(even if it is not the newest thing in the world scenario related to CT radiation dose). The paper is well written, the introduction section is crisp and addresses the current scenario of radiation dose and image quality in HRCT with different matrix combinations. The materials and methods section clearly defines the steps taken in data collection using a 32cm body phantom. Lastly, the results obtained are valuable and should be utilized as a routine imaging protocol to obtain optimum image quality with significant dose reduction in HRCT Thorax scans.

It would add value and improve the visibility of the current manuscript if the authors decide to cite the following high impact articles published in the area of CT Dose reduction and image quality:

Rawashdeh M, McEntee M, Zaitoun M, et al. Knowledge and practice of computed tomography exposure parameters amongst radiographers in Jordan.¹
Mohamad F, Lina K, Ghida A, et al. National diagnostic reference levels have a lot of potential but a long way to go. A systematic review on the current status of adult diagnostic reference levels in head, chest and abdominopelvic Computed Tomography ²
Rawashdeh M, Abdelrahman M, Zaitoun M, et al. Diagnostic reference levels for paediatric CT in Jordan. ³
Rawashdeh M, Saade C, Zaitoun M, et al. Establishment of diagnostic reference levels in cardiac computed tomography.⁴
Rawashdeh, M, Saade C. Radiation dose reduction considerations and imaging patterns of ground glass opacities in coronavirus: risk of over exposure in computed tomography. ⁴
El-Merhi F, Mohamad M, Haydar A, et al. Qualitative and quantitative radiological analysis of non-contrast CT is a strong indicator in patients with acute pyelonephritis. ⁵

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

1. Rawashdeh M, McEntee M, Zaitoun M, Abdelrahman M, et al.: Knowledge and practice of computed tomography exposure parameters amongst radiographers in Jordan. Computers in Biology and Medicine. 2018; 102: 132-137 Publisher Full Text
2. Awad MF, Karout L, Arnous G, Rawashdeh MA, et al.: A systematic review on the current status of adult diagnostic reference levels in head, chest and abdominopelvic Computed Tomography.J Radiol Prot. 2020; 40 (3): R71-R98 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Rawashdeh M, Abdelrahman M, Zaitoun M, Saade C, et al.: Diagnostic reference levels for paediatric CT in Jordan.J Radiol Prot. 2019; 39 (4): 1060-1073 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Rawashdeh M, Saade C, Zaitoun M, Abdelrahman M, et al.: Establishment of diagnostic reference levels in cardiac computed tomography.J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019; 20 (10): 181-186 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Rawashdeh MA, Saade C: Radiation dose reduction considerations and imaging patterns of ground glass opacities in coronavirus: risk of over exposure in computed tomography.Radiol Med. 2021; 126 (3): 380-387 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. El-Merhi F, Mohamad M, Haydar A, Naffaa L, et al.: Qualitative and quantitative radiological analysis of non-contrast CT is a strong indicator in patients with acute pyelonephritis.Am J Emerg Med. 2018; 36 (4): 589-593 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

MRI, Fractional Anisotropy, Diffusion tensor imaging, Parkinson’s Disease, Computed Tomography Radiation Dose, Computed Tomography

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] Ambrosino MM, Genieser NB, Roche KJ, et al.: Feasibility of high-resolution, low-dose chest CT in evaluating the pediatric chest. Pediatr. Radiol. 1994; 24(1): 6–10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[2] Azadbakht J, Khoramian D, Lajevardi ZS, et al.: A review on chest CT scanning parameters implemented in COVID-19 patients: bringing low-dose CT protocols into play. Egypt. J. Radiol. Nucl. Med. 2021; 52(1): 1–10. Publisher Full Text

[3] Chang KP, Hsu TK, Lin WT, et al.: Optimization of dose and image quality in adult and pediatric computed tomography scans. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 2017; 140(January): 260–265. Publisher Full Text

[4] Cucinotta D, Vanelli M: WHO declares COVID-19 a pandemic. Acta. Biomedica. 2020; 91(1): 157–160. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] Dandona L, Dandona R, Kumar GA, et al.: Nations within a nation: variations in epidemiological transition across the states of India, 1990–2016 in the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2017; 390(10111): 2437–2460. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] Davarpanah AH, Mahdavi A, Sabri A, et al.: Novel Screening and Triage Strategy in Iran During Deadly Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Epidemic: Value of Humanitarian Teleconsultation Service. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2020; 17(6): 734–738. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA: Multisection CT Protocols: Sex- and Age-specifi c Conversion Dose from Dose-Length Product 1 Purpose: Methods: Results: Conclusion. Radiology. 2010; 257(1): 158–166. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] Desmet J, Biebaû C, De Wever W, et al.: Performance of low-dose chest CT as a triage tool for suspected COVID-19 patients. J. Belg. Soc. Radiol. 2021; 105(1): 1–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] Hata A, Yanagawa M, Honda O, et al.: Effect of Matrix Size on the Image Quality of Ultra-high-resolution CT of the Lung: Comparison of 512 × 512, 1024 × 1024, and 2048 × 2048. Acad. Radiol. 2018; 25(7): 869–876. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] Honda O, Yanagawa M, Inoue A, et al.: Image quality of multiplanar reconstruction of pulmonary CT scans using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. Br. J. Radiol. 2011; 84(1000): 335–341. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] Kalra MK, Homayounieh F, Arru C, et al.: Chest CT practice and protocols for COVID-19 from radiation dose management perspective. Eur. Radiol. 2020; 30(12): 6554–6560. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] Karabulut N, Törü M, Gelebek V, et al.: Comparison of low-dose and standard-dose helical CT in the evaluation of pulmonary nodules. Eur. Radiol. 2002; 12(11): 2764–2769. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] Kashyape R, Jain R: The utility of HRCT in the initial diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia-An Indian perspective. Indian J. Radiol. Imaging. 2021; 31(5): S178–S181. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[14] Katsura M, Matsuda I, Akahane M, et al.: Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: Comparison with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Eur. Radiol. 2012; 22(8): 1613–1623. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] Kumar M, Pai KM, Vineetha R: Occupation-related musculoskeletal disorders among dental professionals. Med. Pharm. Rep. 2020; 93(4): 405–409. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] Li Y, Xia L: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Role of chest CT in diagnosis and management. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2020; 214(6): 1280–1286. Publisher Full Text

[17] Mahdavi A, Haseli S, Mahdavi A, et al.: The role of repeat chest CT scan in the COVID-19 Pandemic. Acad. Radiol. 2020; 27(7): 1049–1050. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] Menzel HG, Schibilla H, Teunen D: European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Luxembourg: European Commission; 2000; 16262.

[19] Mullenders L, Atkinson M, Paretzke H, et al.: Assessing cancer risks of low-dose radiation. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2009; 9(8): 596–604. Publisher Full Text

[20] Neroladaki A, Botsikas D, Boudabbous S, et al.: Computed tomography of the chest with model-based iterative reconstruction using a radiation exposure similar to chest X-ray examination: Preliminary observations. Eur. Radiol. 2013; 23(2): 360–366. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] Rubin GD, Ryerson CJ, Haramati LB, et al.: The Role of Chest Imaging in Patient Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multinational Consensus Statement From the Fleischner Society. Chest. 2020; 158(1): 106–116. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] Salvi S, Kumar GA, Dhaliwal RS, et al.: The burden of chronic respiratory diseases and their heterogeneity across the states of India: the Global Burden of Disease Study 1990–2016. Lancet Glob. Health. 2018; 6(12): e1363–e1374. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] Shah DJ, Sachs RK, Wilson DJ: Radiation-induced cancer: A modern view. Br. J. Radiol. 2012; 85(1020): e1166–e1173. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[24] Sukumar S: Low dose protocol for high resolution CT thorax: influence of matrix size and tube voltage on image quality and radiation dose.2022. Harvard Dataverse, V1. Publisher Full Text

[25] To T, Viegi G, Cruz A, et al.: A global respiratory perspective on the COVID-19 pandemic: Commentary and action proposals. Eur. Respir. J. 2020; 56(1): 2001704. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[26] Tsukada J, Yamada M, Yamada Y, et al.: Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of FBP, ASiR, and MBIR reconstruction during CT angiography in the evaluation of a vessel phantom with calcified stenosis in a distal superficial femoral artery in a cadaver extremity. Medicine (United States). 2016; 95(27): e4127. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[27] Wang YXJ, Liu W-H, Yang M, et al.: The role of CT for Covid-19 patient’s management remains poorly defined. Ann. Transl. Med. 2020; 8(4): 145–145. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[28] Yanagawa M, Gyobu T, Leung AN, et al.: Ultra-low-dose CT of the Lung. Effect of Iterative Reconstruction Techniques on Image Quality. Acad. Radiol. 2014; 21(6): 695–703. Publisher Full Text

[29] Yeung AWK: The “as Low As Reasonably Achievable” (ALARA) principle: A brief historical overview and a bibliometric analysis of the most cited publications. Radioprotection. 2019; 54(2): 103–109. Publisher Full Text

Low dose protocol for high resolution CT thorax: influence of matrix size and tube voltage on image quality and radiation dose

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Phantom study

Table 1. Protocol used to scan phantom and patient with various combination of kVP and matrix size.

Figure 1. Location of ROIs on CT PMMA phantom.

Study population

Figure 2. Location of ROIs on (a) subscapularis muscle, (b) ascending aorta, (c) descending aorta and (d) background for quantitative image quality assessment in HRCT thorax.

Statistical analysis

Results

Quantitative image analysis of phantom image

Table 2. Comparison of 120 kVp and 100kVp on image matrix size of 512, 768 and 1024: Phantom experiment.

Table 3. Table showing the percentage of difference in SNR, CNR, CTDI and DLP when comparing with different groups of protocol.

Quantitative image analysis of patient population

Table 4. Comparison of 120 kVp and 100kVp on image matrix size of 512, 768 and 1024: patient’s population.

Table 5. Table showing the p-values of quantitative image quality, dose matrix and figure of merit when comparing with different groups of protocol.

Figure 3. Effect of tube voltage and matrix size on (a) SNR, (b) CNR, and (c) FOM.

Table 6. Table showing the mean score for subjective image assessment.

Discussion

Conclusion

Data availability

Underlying data

Author contributions

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated