HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mahesh, M. Articles by Fishman, E. K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mahesh, M. Articles by Fishman, E. K. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Dose and Pitch Relationship for a Particular Multislice CT Scanner

¹ The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 601 N. Caroline St., Baltimore, MD 21287-0811.
² Siemens Medical Systems, 186 Wood Ave. S., Iselin, NJ 08830.

Received May 17, 2001; accepted after revision July 2, 2001.

 
Address correspondence to M. Mahesh.

Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
OBJECTIVE. With single-slice helical CT, an increased pitch can decrease the radiation dose to the patient if all other parameters are constant. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the same relationship holds for a particular multislice helical CT system (Somatom Plus 4 VZ multislice helical CT scanner, version A11A) in our department.

CONCLUSION. The measured radiation dose to the phantom was identical for all pitch selections on the multislice helical CT system we tested. This unexpected result was because of an automatic proportionate increase in the tube current when the pitch selection was increased. Radiologists and physicists should exercise caution when extrapolating dose reduction strategies from single-slice to multislice helical CT systems, and they must acquire a detailed understanding of the multislice helical CT scanner of their chosen manufacturer.

Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Over the past 25 years, CT has become an invaluable diagnostic imaging tool for a wide variety of clinical applications. Helical CT technology [1, 2] and, more recently, multislice helical CT [3, 4] have produced dramatic improvements in scanner capability, in image quality, and in patient throughput. However, a growing concern about the radiation dose delivered to the patient during helical CT examinations has accompanied the rapid diffusion of this technology [5,6,7,8].

Dose reduction strategies used by radiologists and technologists in the daily performance of CT examinations include modifying scanning protocols and manipulating scanning parameters such as milliampere-second, peak kilovoltage, and collimation. In the case of single-slice helical CT systems, the radiation dose to the patient can be reduced by simply increasing the pitch, defined as the table increment per 360° of rotation divided by the nominal scan width, when other scan factors are held constant. We decided to conduct an experiment to determine whether the same relationship between the pitch and radiation dose applies to a multislice helical CT system installed in our department.

Materials and Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Our study focuses on comparing a new Somatom Plus 4 VZ (Volume Zoom) multislice helical CT scanner (version A11A; Siemens Medical Systems, Erlangen, Germany) with a single-slice Somatom Plus 4 (version B40C) helical CT scanner from the same manufacturer. All dose measurements used a 100-mm-long CT pencil ionization chamber and electrometer (model 10 x 5-10.3 CT chamber and MDH model 1015 electrometer; Radcal, Monrovia, CA). The CT chamber was placed 1 cm from the superior surface of a 32-cm-diameter acrylic body phantom. A constant volume (80-mm length) was scanned with 120 kVp and 100 effective mAs for all measurements.

For multislice helical CT scanners, manufacturers use different definitions of pitch, which has resulted in much confusion [9]. For the multislice CT scanner we described, the manufacturer defines "pitch" as the ratio of table movement per 360° rotation to single section thickness (P). We chose to use the definition of pitch [9] as table increment per 360° rotation divided by the total beam width (P'). This definition is applicable to both single- and multislice helical CT scanners, as shown in Table 1. Using slice combinations of 4 x 1 mm and 4 x 2.5 mm, the test volume was scanned on the multislice helical CT scanner at the manufacturer's defined pitch selections of 2, 4, and 8 (P' = 0.5, 1, 2). At a slice width of 3 mm, the same volume was scanned at pitch selections of 0.5, 1, and 2, respectively, on the single-slice helical CT system for comparison. Three dose measurements were recorded and averaged for each pitch setting we tested.

Results

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
The multislice and single-slice helical CT dose measurements are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. For the multislice helical CT system we tested, the measured radiation doses for all slice combinations were essentially the same, regardless of the pitch. At a slice collimation of 4 x 2.5 mm, for example, the absorbed dose measurements for pitches 2, 4, and 8 were 9.92 ± 0.09, 9.94 ± 0.15, and 10.12 ± 0.18 mGy, respectively. Also, for the multislice helical CT system, the actual recorded tube current increased proportionately with an increase in pitch despite the nominal setting of 100 mAs that we entered before scanning.

In contrast, for the single-slice helical CT system, as pitch increased, the measured radiation dose decreased proportionately. The dose measurements were 12.72 ± 0.02, 6.68 ± 0.07, and 3.62 ± 0.00 mGy for pitches of 0.5, 1, and 2, respectively. The actual recorded tube current setting remained constant at all pitch settings.

Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
CT examinations are contributing substantially to the radiation burden of the population. Data from the United Kingdom [5] indicate that in 1998, the 370 CT scanners installed there accounted for approximately 4% of the diagnostic radiologic examinations performed but contributed 40% to the collective radiation dose the population received from medical imaging. Strategies to reduce the radiation to patients who undergo CT examinations can be broadly classified into two groups. First are strategies dealing with the basic design features of the CT system, which include the efficiency of the detectors, the X-ray tube characteristics, and the type of collimators used. Novel approaches to reduce dose while maintaining image quality are still under active investigation [10, 11]. Second, radiologists and technologists can modify basic scanning parameters such as peak kilovoltage, milliampere-second, and pitch; they can also alter their scanning protocols by reducing the number of images or data sets acquired during a CT study [8, 12].

Our experiment confirms that increasing pitch proportionately reduces patient radiation dose on a single-slice helical CT scanner when other parameters are held constant. This relationship is expressed mathematically as dose mAs / pitch. On the multislice helical CT scanner we examined, the same relationship holds true. However, when the pitch selection is increased on this particular system, a proportionate increase in tube current is automatically made, presumably to maintain similar noise conditions in the clinical image. This fact explains why, as shown by our experiment, an increase in pitch produced no reduction in the radiation dose to the phantom, because both pitch and tube current scale in opposite directions (Table 4). Had we been aware of this idiosyncrasy of our multislice CT scanner, perhaps we could have anticipated this unexpected result.

From experience over the past decade, radiologists have become accustomed to the notion that by increasing pitch on helical CT scanners, they can proportionately decrease the radiation exposure to patients being scanned [12]. The purpose of our report is to suggest that radiologists exercise caution when extrapolating this concept to multislice scanners.

Comparing the definition of pitch for single- and multislice helical CT scanners can be confusing. In fact, Silverman et al. [9] have suggested adopting a uniform definition of pitch applicable to both single- and multislice CT systems. We agree with their commentary and used their definition of pitch for this study.

Multislice CT technology offers superb image quality, reduced examination time, and the ability to perform complex multiphase vascular and three-dimensional examinations. However, our experiment suggests that the strategy of increasing pitch for radiation dose reduction on single-slice helical CT scanners may not be safely applied to all multislice helical CT systems. To maximize the clinical benefit of multislice helical CT while limiting the radiation our patients receive, radiologists and physicists must acquire a thorough, machine-specific understanding of the multislice equipment of their chosen manufacturer.

References

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 

1. Kalender WA, Seissler W, Klotz E, Vock P. Spiral volumetric CT with single-breath-hold technique, continuous transport, and continuous scanner rotation. Radiology 1990;176 : 181-183[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Crawford CR, King KF. Computed tomography scanning with simultaneous patient translation. Med Phys 1990;17:967 -982[Medline]
3. Hu H. Multi-slice helical CT: scan and reconstruction. Med Phys 1999;26:5 -18[Medline]
4. Klingenbeck-Regn K, Schaller S, Flohr T, Ohnesorge B, Kopp AF, Baum U. Subsecond multi-slice computed tomography: basics and applications. Eur J Radiol 1999;31:110 -124[Medline]
5. Clarke J, Cranley K, Robinson J, Smith PH, Workman A. Application of draft European Commission reference levels to a regional CT dose survey. Br J Radiol 2000;73:43 -50[Abstract]
6. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD, Hall EJ, Berdon WE. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR 2001;176:289 -296[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Hidajat N, Wolf M, Nunnemann A, et al. Survey of conventional and spiral CT doses. Radiology 2001;218:395 -401[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Paterson A, Frush DP, Donnelly LF. Helical CT of the body: are settings adjusted for pediatric patients? AJR 2001;176:297 -301[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Silverman PM, Kalender WA, Hazle JD. Common terminology for single and multislice helical CT. (commentary) AJR 2001;176:1135 -1136[Free Full Text]
10. Kalender WA, Wolf H, Suess C, Gies M, Greess H, Bautz WA. Dose reduction in CT by on-line tube current control: principles and validation on phantoms and cadavers. Eur Radiol 1999;9:323 -328[Medline]
11. Greess H, Wolf H, Baum U, et al. Dose reduction in computed tomography by attenuation-based on-line modulation of tube current: evaluation of six anatomical regions. Eur Radiol 2000;10:391 -394[Medline]
12. Donnelly LF, Emery KH, Brody AS, et al. Minimizing radiation dose for pediatric body applications of single-detector helical CT: strategies at a large children's hospital. AJR 2001;176:303 -306[Free Full Text]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. A. Gavrielides, L. M. Kinnard, K. J. Myers, and N. Petrick Noncalcified Lung Nodules: Volumetric Assessment with Thoracic CT Radiology, April 1, 2009; 251(1): 26 - 37. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. W. Goldman Principles of CT: Multislice CT J. Nucl. Med. Technol., June 1, 2008; 36(2): 57 - 68. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Kim, K. H. Lee, K. J. Kim, R. Mantiuk, H.-r. Kim, and Y. H. Kim Artifacts in Slab Average-Intensity-Projection Images Reformatted from JPEG 2000 Compressed Thin-Section Abdominal CT Data Sets Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2008; 190(6): W342 - W350. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Kubo, P.-J. P. Lin, W. Stiller, M. Takahashi, H.-U. Kauczor, Y. Ohno, and H. Hatabu Radiation Dose Reduction in Chest CT: A Review Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2008; 190(2): 335 - 343. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T.H. Mulkens, P. Marchal, S. Daineffe, R. Salgado, P. Bellinck, B. t. Rijdt, B. Kegelaers, and J.-L. Termote Comparison of Low-Dose With Standard-Dose Multidetector CT in Cervical Spine Trauma AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., September 1, 2007; 28(8): 1444 - 1450. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. S. Woo, K. J. Kim, T. J. Kim, S. Hahn, B. Kim, Y. H. Kim, and K. H. Lee JPEG 2000 Compression of Abdominal CT: Difference in Tolerance Between Thin- and Thick-Section Images Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2007; 189(3): 535 - 541. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Mahesh and D. D. Cody AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Physics of Cardiac Imaging with Multiple-Row Detector CT RadioGraphics, September 1, 2007; 27(5): 1495 - 1509. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Bohy, V. de Maertelaer, A. Roquigny, C. Keyzer, D. Tack, and P. A. Gevenois Multidetector CT in Patients Suspected of Having Lumbar Disk Herniation: Comparison of Standard-Dose and Simulated Low-Dose Techniques Radiology, August 1, 2007; 244(2): 524 - 531. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Madani, V. De Maertelaer, J. Zanen, and P. A. Gevenois Pulmonary Emphysema: Radiation Dose and Section Thickness at Multidetector CT Quantification--Comparison with Macroscopic and Microscopic Morphometry Radiology, April 1, 2007; 243(1): 250 - 257. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. A. Bankier, C. Schaefer-Prokop, V. De Maertelaer, D. Tack, P. Jaksch, W. Klepetko, and P. A. Gevenois Air Trapping: Comparison of Standard-Dose and Simulated Low-Dose Thin-Section CT Techniques Radiology, March 1, 2007; 242(3): 898 - 906. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. H. Mulkens, S. Daineffe, R. De Wijngaert, P. Bellinck, A. Leonard, G. Smet, and J.-L. Termote Urinary Stone Disease: Comparison of Standard-Dose and Low-Dose with 4D MDCT Tube Current Modulation Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2007; 188(2): 553 - 562. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Rothkamm, S. Balroop, J. Shekhdar, P. Fernie, and V. Goh Leukocyte DNA Damage after Multi-Detector Row CT: A Quantitative Biomarker of Low-Level Radiation Exposure Radiology, January 1, 2007; 242(1): 244 - 251. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. M. Hurwitz, T. T. Yoshizumi, R. E. Reiman, E. K. Paulson, D. P. Frush, G. T. Nguyen, G. I. Toncheva, and P. C. Goodman Radiation dose to the female breast from 16-MDCT body protocols. Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2006; 186(6): 1718 - 1722. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. S. Parker, F. K. Hui, M. A. Camacho, J. K. Chung, D. W. Broga, and N. N. Sethi Female Breast Radiation Exposure During CT Pulmonary Angiography Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2005; 185(5): 1228 - 1233. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. H. Mulkens, P. Bellinck, M. Baeyaert, D. Ghysen, X. Van Dijck, E. Mussen, C. Venstermans, and J.-L. Termote Use of an Automatic Exposure Control Mechanism for Dose Optimization in Multi-Detector Row CT Examinations: Clinical Evaluation Radiology, October 1, 2005; 237(1): 213 - 223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Tack, P. Bohy, I. Perlot, V. De Maertelaer, O. Alkeilani, S. Sourtzis, and P. A. Gevenois Suspected Acute Colon Diverticulitis: Imaging with Low-Dose Unenhanced Multi-Detector Row CT Radiology, October 1, 2005; 237(1): 189 - 196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Keyzer, M. Zalcman, V. De Maertelaer, E. Coppens, M.-A. Bali, P. A. Gevenois, and D. Van Gansbeke Comparison of US and Unenhanced Multi-Detector Row CT in Patients Suspected of having Acute Appendicitis Radiology, August 1, 2005; 236(2): 527 - 534. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Tack, V. De Maertelaer, W. Petit, P. Scillia, P. Muller, C. Suess, and P. A. Gevenois Multi-Detector Row CT Pulmonary Angiography: Comparison of Standard-Dose and Simulated Low-Dose Techniques Radiology, July 1, 2005; 236(1): 318 - 325. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. E. van Gelder, H. W. Venema, J. Florie, C. Y. Nio, I. W. O. Serlie, M. P. Schutter, J. C. van Rijn, F. M. Vos, A. S. Glas, P. M. M. Bossuyt, et al. CT Colonography: Feasibility of Substantial Dose Reduction--Comparison of Medium to Very Low Doses in Identical Patients Radiology, August 1, 2004; 232(2): 611 - 620. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Keyzer, D. Tack, V. de Maertelaer, P. Bohy, P. A. Gevenois, and D. Van Gansbeke Acute Appendicitis: Comparison of Low-Dose and Standard-Dose Unenhanced Multi-Detector Row CT Radiology, July 1, 2004; 232(1): 164 - 172. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. K. Kalra, M. M. Maher, T. L. Toth, L. M. Hamberg, M. A. Blake, J.-A. Shepard, and S. Saini Strategies for CT Radiation Dose Optimization Radiology, March 1, 2004; 230(3): 619 - 628. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Tack, J. Widelec, V. De Maertelaer, J.-M. Bailly, C. Delcour, and P. A. Gevenois Comparison Between Low-Dose and Standard-Dose Multidetector CT in Patients with Suspected Chronic Sinusitis Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2003; 181(4): 939 - 944. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Tack, V. De Maertelaer, and P. A. Gevenois Dose Reduction in Multidetector CT Using Attenuation-Based Online Tube Current Modulation Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2003; 181(2): 331 - 334. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. K. Gupta, R. C. Nelson, G. A. Johnson, E. K. Paulson, D. M. Delong, and T. T. Yoshizumi Optimization of Eight-Element Multi-Detector Row Helical CT Technology for Evaluation of the Abdomen Radiology, June 1, 2003; 227(3): 739 - 745. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Tack, S. Sourtzis, I. Delpierre, V. de Maertelaer, and P. A. Gevenois Low-Dose Unenhanced Multidetector CT of Patients with Suspected Renal Colic Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2003; 180(2): 305 - 311. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. S. Katz, N. Venkataramanan, S. Napel, and F. G. Sommer Can Low-Dose Unenhanced Multidetector CT Be Used for Routine Evaluation of Suspected Renal Colic? Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2003; 180(2): 313 - 315. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. F. McNitt-Gray AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Topics in CT: Radiation Dose in CT RadioGraphics, November 1, 2002; 22(6): 1541 - 1553. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Mahesh The AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Search for Isotropic Resolution in CT from Conventional through Multiple-Row Detector RadioGraphics, July 1, 2002; 22(4): 949 - 962. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mahesh, M. Articles by Fishman, E. K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mahesh, M. Articles by Fishman, E. K. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?