Objective. This study aims to assess the impact of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) on CT imaging quality, diagnostic interpretability, and radiation dose reduction for a proven CT acquisition protocol for total body trauma. Methods. 18 patients with multiple trauma ( ) were examined either with a routine protocol ( ), 30% ( ), or 40% ( ) of iterative reconstruction (IR) modification in the raw data domain of the routine protocol (140？kV, collimation: 40, noise index: 15). Study groups were matched by scan range and maximal abdominal diameter. Image noise was quantitatively measured. Image contrast, image noise, and overall interpretability were evaluated by two experienced and blinded readers. The amount of radiation dose reductions was evaluated. Results. No statistically significant differences between routine and IR protocols regarding image noise, contrast, and interpretability were present. Mean effective dose for the routine protocol was ？mSv, ？mSv for the IR 30, and ？mSv for the IR 40 protocol, that is, 22.1% effective dose reduction for IR 30 ( ) and 30.8% effective dose reduction for IR 40 ( ). Conclusions. IR does not reduce study interpretability in total body trauma protocols while providing a significant reduction in effective radiation dose. 1. Introduction The use of computed tomography (CT) brought enormous benefits to modern medicine and diagnostic CT examinations are increasingly used in recent years because of their speed, availability, and diagnostical power. In particular, for patients with polytrauma during the early resuscitation phase, whole-body CT is recommended as the standard diagnostic modality [1]. However, the common utilization of CT is accompanied by a steady increase in the population’s cumulative exposure to ionizing radiation [2, 3]. As X-rays have been classified as “carcinogen,” new efforts to minimize radiation exposure were undertaken to meet rising concerns of possible long-term cancer, especially regarding pediatric and young patients as well as patients undergoing several follow-up CT examinations [4]. A plurality of approaches, from “AEC” (automated exposure control) to “X-ray beam collimation,” led to a significant reduction in radiation dose [5, 6]. With the fast advancement of computational power, the technique of iterative reconstruction (IR), well known from SPECT and PET imaging, became the center of attention for CT adaption in recent years [7–10]. The group of severely injured patients is of great concern for dose reduction as these patients may be of a young age and standard
References
[1]
S. Huber-Wagner, R. Lefering, L. Qvick et al., “Effect of whole-body CT during trauma resuscitation on survival: a retrospective, multicentre study,” The Lancet, vol. 373, no. 9673, pp. 1455–1461, 2009.
[2]
A. B. de González, M. Mahesh, K. Kim et al., “Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007,” Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 169, no. 22, pp. 2071–2077, 2009.
[3]
E. J. Hall and D. J. Brenner, “Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology,” The British Journal of Radiology, vol. 81, no. 965, pp. 362–378, 2008.
[4]
World Health Organization, “Overall evaluations of carcinogenicity to humans, list of all agents evaluated to date,” World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsAlphaOrder.pdf.
[5]
W. A. Kalender, H. Wolf, and C. Suess, “Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. II. Phantom measurements,” Medical Physics, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 2248–2253, 1999.
[6]
C. H. McCollough, M. R. Bruesewitz, and J. M. Kofler Jr., “CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options,” Radiographics, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 503–512, 2006.
[7]
D. Fleischmann and F. E. Boas, “Computed tomography—old ideas and new technology,” European Radiology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 510–517, 2011.
[8]
J. E. Wilting, A. Zwartkruis, M. S. van Leeuven, J. Timmer, A. G. A. Kamphuis, and M. Feldberg, “A rational approach to dose reduction in CT: individualized scan protocols,” European Radiology, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 2627–2632, 2001.
[9]
M. J. Willemink, P. A. de Jong, T. Leiner, et al., “Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography, part 1: technical principles,” European Radiology, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1623–1631, 2013.
[10]
M. J. Willemink, T. Leiner, P. A. de Jong, et al., “Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography, part 2: initial results in dose reduction and image quality,” European Radiology, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1632–1642, 2013.
[11]
J. E. Winslow, J. W. Hinshaw, M. J. Hughes, R. C. Williams, and W. P. Bozeman, “Quantitative assessment of diagnostic radiation doses in adult blunt trauma patients,” Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 93–97, 2008.
[12]
M. J. Willemink, A. M. R. Schilham, T. Leiner, et al., “Iterative reconstruction does not substantially delay CT imaging in an emergency setting.,” Insights into Imaging, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 391–397, 2013.
[13]
“S3-Guideline on Treatment of Patients with Severe and Multiple Injuries,” Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften e.V., German Trauma Society (DGU), http://www.dgu-online.de/fileadmin/published_content/5.Qualitaet_und_Sicherheit/PDF/20110720_S3_LL_Polytrauma_DGU_eng_f.pdf.
[14]
J. Reid, J. Gamberoni, F. Dong, and W. Davros, “Optimization of kVp and mAs for pediatric low-dose simulated abdominal CT: is it best to base parameter selection on object circumference?” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 195, no. 4, pp. 1015–1020, 2010.
[15]
A. K. Hara, R. G. Paden, A. C. Silva, et al., “Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: feasibility study,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 193, no. 3, pp. 764–771, 2009.
[16]
L. P. Qi, Y. Li, L. Tang, et al., “Evaluation of dose reduction and image quality in chest CT using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction with the same group of patients,” British Journal of Radiology, vol. 85, no. 1018, pp. e906–e911, 2012.
[17]
The American Association of Physicists in Medicine, “The measurement, reporting, and management of radiation dose in CT,” Tech. Rep. 96, The American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 2008.
[18]
J. M. Yeguiayan, A. Yap, M. Freysz, et al., “Impact of whole-body computed tomography on mortality and surgical management of severe blunt trauma,” Critical Care, vol. 16, no. 3, article R101, 2012.
[19]
J. C. Sierink, T. P. Saltzherr, L. F. M. Beenen et al., “A multicenter, randomized controlled trial of immediate total-body CT scanning in trauma patients (REACT-2),” BMC Emergency Medicine, vol. 12, article 4, 2012.
[20]
J. Leipsic, G. Nguyen, J. Brown, D. Sin, and J. R. Mayo, “A prospective evaluation of dose reduction and image quality in chest CT using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 195, no. 5, pp. 1095–1099, 2010.
[21]
A. C. Martinsen, H. K. Saether, P. K. Hol, et al., “Iterative reconstruction reduces abdominal CT dose,” European Journal of Radiology, vol. 81, no. 7, pp. 1483–1487, 2012.
[22]
S. Baumueller, A. Winklehner, C. Karlo C, et al., “Low-dose CT of the lung: potential value of iterative reconstructions,” European Radiology, vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 2597–2606, 2012.
[23]
D. J. Brenner and C. D. Elliston, “Estimated radiation on risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening,” Radiology, vol. 232, no. 3, pp. 735–738, 2004.
