Optimization of Scanning Parameters for Multi-slice CT Colonography: Experiments with Synthetic and Animal Phantoms

• Published in: Clinical radiology Vol. 58; no. 12; pp. 955 - 963
• Main Authors: Embleton, K.V., Nicholson, D.A., Hufton, A.P., Jackson, A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Amsterdam Elsevier Ltd 01.12.2003; Elsevier
• Subjects: Animals; Biological and medical sciences; colon; Colon - diagnostic imaging; colon neoplasms; Colonic Polyps - diagnostic imaging; Colonography, Computed Tomographic - methods; computed tomography; Digestive system; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Medical sciences; phantoms; Phantoms, Imaging; Radiation Dosage; Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry; Swine; computed tomography; phantoms; colon; colon neoplasms; Visualization; Scanning; Radiodiagnosis; Malignant tumor; Optimization; Pig; Colonic disease; Vertebrata; Mammalia; Animal; Digestive diseases; Medical imagery; Intestinal disease; Parameter; Multislice; Computerized axial tomography; Artiodactyla; Colon; Diagnosis; Technique; Ungulata; Test object
• ISSN: 0009-9260; 1365-229X
• DOI: 10.1016/S0009-9260(03)00297-6

AIM: To determine the optimal collimation, pitch, tube current and reconstruction interval for multi-slice computed tomography (CT) colonography with regard to attaining satisfactory image quality while minimizing patient radiation dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multi-slice CT was performed on plastic, excised pig colon and whole pig phantoms to determine optimal settings. Performance was judged by detection of simulated polyps and statistical measures of the image parameters. Fat and muscle conspicuity was measured from images of dual tube–current prone/supine patient data to derive a measure of tube current effects on tissue contrast. RESULTS: A collimation of 4×2.5 mm was sufficient for detection of polyps 4 mm and larger, provided that a reconstruction interval of 1.25 mm was used. A pitch of 1.5 allowed faster scanning and reduced radiation dose without resulting in a loss of important information, i.e. detection of small polyps, when compared with a pitch of 0.75. Tube current and proportional radiation dose could be lowered substantially without deleterious effects on the detection of the air–mucosal interface, however, increased image noise substantially reduced conspicuity of different tissues. CONCLUSION: An optimal image acquisition set-up of 4×2.5 mm collimation, reconstruction interval of 1.25 mm, pitch of 1.5 and dual prone/supine scan of 40/100 mA tube current is proposed for our institution for scanning symptomatic patients. Indications are that where CT colonography is used for colonic polyp screening in non-symptomatic patients, a 40 mA tube current could prove satisfactory for both scans.