IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0081141.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Iterative Reconstruction Lower CT Radiation Dose: Evaluation of 15,000 Examinations

Author

Listed:
  • Peter B Noël
  • Bernhard Renger
  • Martin Fiebich
  • Daniela Münzel
  • Alexander A Fingerle
  • Ernst J Rummeny
  • Martin Dobritz

Abstract

Purpose: Evaluation of 15,000 computed tomography (CT) examinations to investigate if iterative reconstruction (IR) reduces sustainably radiation exposure. Method and Materials: Information from 15,000 CT examinations was collected, including all aspects of the exams such as scan parameter, patient information, and reconstruction instructions. The examinations were acquired between January 2010 and December 2012, while after 15 months a first generation IR algorithm was installed. To collect the necessary information from PACS, RIS, MPPS and structured reports a Dose Monitoring System was developed. To harvest all possible information an optical character recognition system was integrated, for example to collect information from the screenshot CT-dose report. The tool transfers all data to a database for further processing such as the calculation of effective dose and organ doses. To evaluate if IR provides a sustainable dose reduction, the effective dose values were statistically analyzed with respect to protocol type, diagnostic indication, and patient population. Results: IR has the potential to reduce radiation dose significantly. Before clinical introduction of IR the average effective dose was 10.1±7.8mSv and with IR 8.9±7.1mSv (p*=0.01). Especially in CTA, with the possibility to use kV reduction protocols, such as in aortic CTAs (before IR: average14.2±7.8mSv; median11.4mSv /with IR:average9.9±7.4mSv; median7.4mSv), or pulmonary CTAs (before IR: average9.7±6.2mSV; median7.7mSv /with IR: average6.4±4.7mSv; median4.8mSv) the dose reduction effect is significant(p*=0.01). On the contrary for unenhanced low-dose scans of the cranial (for example sinuses) the reduction is not significant (before IR:average6.6±5.8mSv; median3.9mSv/with IR:average6.0±3.1mSV; median3.2mSv). Conclusion: The dose aspect remains a priority in CT research. Iterative reconstruction algorithms reduce sustainably and significantly radiation dose in the clinical routine. Our results illustrate that not only in studies with a limited number of patients but also in the clinical routine, IRs provide long-term dose saving.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter B Noël & Bernhard Renger & Martin Fiebich & Daniela Münzel & Alexander A Fingerle & Ernst J Rummeny & Martin Dobritz, 2013. "Does Iterative Reconstruction Lower CT Radiation Dose: Evaluation of 15,000 Examinations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-1, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0081141
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081141
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081141
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081141&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0081141?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mathias Marschner & Lorenz Birnbacher & Marian Willner & Michael Chabior & Julia Herzen & Peter B Noël & Franz Pfeiffer, 2017. "Revising the lower statistical limit of x-ray grating-based phase-contrast computed tomography," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-20, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0081141. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.