OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was intrapatient comparison of image quality and radiation dose between MDCT scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis obtained with attenuation- based automated kilovoltage selection and sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction and scans obtained with standard kilovoltage selection and a filtered backprojection image reconstruction algorithm. MATERIALS AND METHODS. One hundred one oncology patients who had undergone two chest, abdominal, and pelvis CT scans within 1 year were imaged with standard tube voltage selection of 120 kVp using a filtered backprojection reconstruction algorithm (protocol 1) and with attenuation-based automated tube voltage selection using an iterative reconstruction algorithm (protocol 2). Radiation dose parameters (volumetric CT dose index [CTDIvol], dose-length product, and effective dose) as well as image noise, signal-to-noise ratio, and contrast-to-noise ratio were compared. Two independent radiologists evaluated image quality and sharpness. Student t test, Fisher exact test, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used for analysis. A p value less than 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS. Mean ± SD CTDIvol values were 19.9 ± 4.43 mGy and 12.53 ± 4.79 mGy for protocols 1 and 2, respectively (p < 0.0001). Effective dose was 38.2% lower on average using protocol 2 compared with protocol 1 (12.08 vs 19.55 mSv; p < 0.0001). Objective image quality parameters were significantly better in protocol 2 (p < 0.0001). Both radiologists found the overall image quality and sharpness to be similar for both protocols (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION. In patients undergoing CT examination of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis, the combination of attenuation-based automated tube voltage selection with iterative reconstruction significantly reduced radiation dose parameters and maintained objective image quality when compared with standard tube voltage selection associated with filtered backprojection reconstruction.
- Attenuation-based automated kilovoltage selection
- Filtered backprojection reconstruction
- Image quality
- Iterative reconstruction
- Radiation dose