Reduction in radiation dose with reconstruction technique in the brain perfusion CT

Abstract

The principal objective of this study was to verify the utility of the reconstruction imaging technique in the brain perfusion computed tomography (PCT) scan by assessing reductions in the radiation dose and analyzing the generated images. The setting used for image acquisition had a detector coverage of 40 mm, a helical thickness of 0.625 mm, a helical shuttle mode scan type and a rotation time of 0.5 s as the image parameters used for the brain PCT scan. Additionally, a phantom experiment and an animal experiment were carried out. In the phantom and animal experiments, noise was measured in the scanning with the tube voltage fixed at 80 kVp (kilovolt peak) and the level of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) was changed from 0% to 100% at 10% intervals. The standard deviation of the CT coefficient was measured three times to calculate the mean value. In the phantom and animal experiments, the absorbed dose was measured 10 times under the same conditions as the ones for noise measurement before the mean value was calculated. In the animal experiment, pencil-type and CT-dedicated ionization chambers were inserted into the central portion of pig heads for measurement. In the phantom study, as the level of the ASIR changed from 0% to 100% under identical scanning conditions, the noise value and dose were proportionally reduced. In our animal experiment, the noise value was lowest when the ASIR level was 50%, unlike in the phantom study. The dose was reduced as in the phantom study.

Dose Reduction While Preserving Diagnostic Quality in Head CT: Advancing the Application of Iterative Reconstruction Using a Live Animal Model

“…Despite the virtues of such a middleof-the-road approach, it is a path rarely trodden. Sparse studies have used pig 22 brain with IR as well as dog 23 and pig 24 brains unrelated to IR, yet these animals were euthanized at the time of scanning, which alters physiology and calls into question their adequacy. Only in vivo models can adequately simulate the real-life concerns of practicing radiologists.…”