Comparison of air kerma between C-arm CT and 64-multidetector-row CT using a phantom
Tóm tắt
To compare air kerma after scanning a phantom with C-arm CT and with 64-multidetector row CT (64MDCT). A phantom was scanned using parameters based on data of ten patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who had C-arm CT during hepatic arteriography and 64MDCT during arterial portography. Radiation monitors were used to measure air kerma ten times at each of five points: the center (A), top (B), left side (C), bottom (D), and right side (E). For C-arm CT vs. 64MDCT, air kerma after scanning was 10.5 ± 0.2 vs. 6.4 ± 0.0 for A, 1.5 ± 0.0 vs. 11.6 ± 0.2 for B, 37.1 ± 0.2 vs. 11.1 ± 0.1 for C, 55.6 ± 1.0 vs. 10.6 ± 0.1 for D, and 40.5 ± 0.5 vs. 11.7 ± 0.1 for E, respectively. Air kerma for A, B, C, D, and E was 1.64, 0.13, 3.34, 5.24, and 3.46 times greater for C-arm CT than for 64MDCT, respectively. Using the same scanning parameters as for clinical cases, air kerma values were greater with C-arm CT than with 64MDCT; at the dorsal side of the phantom, they were 5.24 times greater with C-arm CT compared with 64MDCT.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Ichikawa T, Kumazaki T. Clinical usefulness of computed tomography arteriography and computed tomography during arterial portography for the diagnosis of early and early advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Nippon Med Sch. 2000;67(2):105–9.
Tsurusaki M, Sugimoto K, Fujii M, Fukuda T, Matsumoto S, Sugimura K. Combination of CT during arterial portography and double-phase CT hepatic arteriography with multi-detector row helical CT for evaluation of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Radiol. 2007;62(12):1189–97.
Ohnishi H, Sakaguchi K, Nouso K, et al. Outcome of small liver nodules detected by computed tomographic angiography in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Int. 2010;4(3):562–8.
Kakeda S, Korogi Y, Ohnari N, et al. Usefulness of cone-beam volume CT with flat panel detectors in conjunction with catheter angiography for transcatheter arterial embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2007;18(12):1508–16.
Miyayama S, Yamashiro M, Okuda M, et al. Usefulness of cone-beam computed tomography during ultraselective transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for small hepatocellular carcinomas that cannot be demonstrated on angiography. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2009;32(2):255–64.
Jeon UB, Lee JW, Choo KS, et al. Iodized oil uptake assessment with cone-beam CT in chemoembolization of small hepatocellular carcinomas. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15(46):5833–7.
Takayasu K, Arii S, Matsuo N, et al. Comparison of CT findings with resected specimens after chemoembolization with iodized oil for hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR. 2000;175(3):699–704.
Schulz B, Heidenreich R, Heidenreich M, et al. Radiation exposure to operating staff during rotational flat-panel angiography and C-arm cone beam computed tomography (CT) applications. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(12):4138–42.
Venneri L, Rossi F, Botto N, et al. Cancer risk from professional exposure in staff working in cardiac catheterization laboratory: insights from the National Research Council’s Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII Report. Am Heart J. 2009;157(1):118–24.
Buls N, Pagés J, de Mey J, Osteaux M. Evaluation of patient and staff doses during various CT fluoroscopy guided interventions. Health Phys. 2003;85(2):165–73.
Sakamoto K, Miura K, Ueda K, et al. Evaluation of low contrast resolution in cone beam CT using FPD. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi. 2006;62(4):539–45.
Hirota K, Iwata N, Hirata Y, Matsuda T, Kaminou T. Comparative evaluation of 3D images reconstructed of MDCT or cone-beam CT: with special attention to depiction with abdominal IVR. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi. 2009;65(6):745–54.
Jaffray DA, Siewerdsen JH. Cone-beam computed tomography with a flat-panel imager: initial performance characterization. Med Phys. 2000;27(6):1311–23.
Fukunishi Y. Evaluation and problem of cone-beam CT in angiography 2. Cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi. 2010;66(3):265–70.
ICRU. Report No. 85. Fundamental quantities and units for ionizing radiation (revised). J ICRU. 2011;11(10):23–31.
McCollough CH. CT dose: how to measure, how to reduce. Health Phys. 2008;95(5):508–17.
Cohnen M, Poll LJ, Puettmann C, Ewen K, Saleh A, Mödder U. Effective doses in standard protocols for multi-slice CT scanning. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(5):1148–53.
Hirota S, Nakao N, Yamamoto S, et al. Cone-beam CT with flat-panel-detector digital angiography system: early experience in abdominal interventional procedures. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2006;29(6):1034–8.
Irie K, Murayama Y, Saguchi T, et al. DynaCT soft-tissue visualization using an angiographic C-arm system: initial clinical experience in the operating room. Neurosurgery. 2008;62(3):266–72.
Eide KR, Odegard A, Myhre HO, et al. DynaCT during EVAR: a comparison with multidetector CT. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009;37(1):23–30.
ICRU. Report No. 47. Measurement of dose equivalents from external photon and electron radiations. J ICRU. 1992;15(4):22–30.
Bai M, Liu B, Mu H, Liu X, Jiang Y. The comparison of radiation dose between C-arm flat-detector CT (DynaCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT): a phantom study. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(11):3577–80.
Smyth J, Sutton D, Houston J. Evaluation of the quality of CT-like images obtained using a commercial flat panel detector system. Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2006;2(4):e48.
Söderman M, Babic D, Holmin S, Andersson T. Brain imaging with a flat detector C-arm: technique and clinical interest of XperCT. Neuroradiology. 2008;50(10):863–8.
Podnieks EC, Negus IS. Practical patient dosimetry for partial rotation cone beam CT. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(10):161–7.