Objective To investigate the image quality, radiation dose and diagnostic value of the low-tube-voltage high-pitch dual-source computed tomography(DSCT) with sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction(SAFIRE) for non-...Objective To investigate the image quality, radiation dose and diagnostic value of the low-tube-voltage high-pitch dual-source computed tomography(DSCT) with sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction(SAFIRE) for non-enhanced abdominal and pelvic scans. Methods This institutional review board-approved prospective study included 64 patients who gave written informed consent for additional abdominal and pelvic scan with DSCT in the period from November to December 2012. The patients underwent standard non-enhanced CT scans(protocol 1) [tube voltage of 120 k Vp/pitch of 0.9/filtered back-projection(FBP) reconstruction] followed by high-pitch non-enhanced CT scans(protocol 2)(100 k Vp/3.0/SAFIRE). The total scan time, mean CT number, signal-to-noise ratio(SNR), image quality, lesion detectability and radiation dose were compared between the two protocols. Results The total scan time of protocol 2 was significantly shorter than that of protocol 1(1.4±0.1 seconds vs. 7.6±0.6 seconds, P<0.001). There was no significant difference between protocol 1 and protocol 2 in mean CT number of all organs(liver, 55.4±6.3 HU vs. 56.1±6.8 HU, P=0.214; pancreas, 43.6±5.9 HU vs. 43.7±5.8 HU, P=0.785; spleen, 47.9±3.9 HU vs. 49.4±4.3 HU, P=0.128; kidney, 32.2±2.3 HU vs. 33.1±2.3 HU, P=0.367; abdominal aorta, 44.8±5.6 HU vs. 45.0±5.5 HU, P=0.499; psoas muscle, 50.7±4.1 HU vs. 50.3±4.5 HU, P=0.279). SNR on images of protocol 2 was higher than that of protocol 1(liver, 5.0±1.2 vs. 4.5±1.1, P<0.001; pancreas, 4.0±1.0 vs. 3.6±0.8, P<0.001; spleen, 4.7±1.0 vs. 4.1±0.9, P<0.001; kidney, 3.1±0.6 vs. 2.8±0.6, P<0.001; abdominal aorta, 4.1±1.0 vs. 3.8±1.0, P<0.001; psoas muscle, 4.5±1.1 vs. 4.3±1.2, P=0.012). The overall image noise of protocol 2 was lower than that of protocol1(9.8±3.1 HU vs. 11.1±3.0 HU, P<0.001). Image quality of protocol 2 was good but lower than that of protocol 1(4.1±0.7 vs. 4.6±0.5, P<0.001). Protocol 2 perceived 229 of 234 lesions(97.9%) that were detected in protocol 1 in the abdomen and pe展开更多
文摘Objective To investigate the image quality, radiation dose and diagnostic value of the low-tube-voltage high-pitch dual-source computed tomography(DSCT) with sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction(SAFIRE) for non-enhanced abdominal and pelvic scans. Methods This institutional review board-approved prospective study included 64 patients who gave written informed consent for additional abdominal and pelvic scan with DSCT in the period from November to December 2012. The patients underwent standard non-enhanced CT scans(protocol 1) [tube voltage of 120 k Vp/pitch of 0.9/filtered back-projection(FBP) reconstruction] followed by high-pitch non-enhanced CT scans(protocol 2)(100 k Vp/3.0/SAFIRE). The total scan time, mean CT number, signal-to-noise ratio(SNR), image quality, lesion detectability and radiation dose were compared between the two protocols. Results The total scan time of protocol 2 was significantly shorter than that of protocol 1(1.4±0.1 seconds vs. 7.6±0.6 seconds, P<0.001). There was no significant difference between protocol 1 and protocol 2 in mean CT number of all organs(liver, 55.4±6.3 HU vs. 56.1±6.8 HU, P=0.214; pancreas, 43.6±5.9 HU vs. 43.7±5.8 HU, P=0.785; spleen, 47.9±3.9 HU vs. 49.4±4.3 HU, P=0.128; kidney, 32.2±2.3 HU vs. 33.1±2.3 HU, P=0.367; abdominal aorta, 44.8±5.6 HU vs. 45.0±5.5 HU, P=0.499; psoas muscle, 50.7±4.1 HU vs. 50.3±4.5 HU, P=0.279). SNR on images of protocol 2 was higher than that of protocol 1(liver, 5.0±1.2 vs. 4.5±1.1, P<0.001; pancreas, 4.0±1.0 vs. 3.6±0.8, P<0.001; spleen, 4.7±1.0 vs. 4.1±0.9, P<0.001; kidney, 3.1±0.6 vs. 2.8±0.6, P<0.001; abdominal aorta, 4.1±1.0 vs. 3.8±1.0, P<0.001; psoas muscle, 4.5±1.1 vs. 4.3±1.2, P=0.012). The overall image noise of protocol 2 was lower than that of protocol1(9.8±3.1 HU vs. 11.1±3.0 HU, P<0.001). Image quality of protocol 2 was good but lower than that of protocol 1(4.1±0.7 vs. 4.6±0.5, P<0.001). Protocol 2 perceived 229 of 234 lesions(97.9%) that were detected in protocol 1 in the abdomen and pe
