Comparison of low contrast sensitivity among multi-slice CT units using various mAs setting for the potential benefit of non-MRI compatible, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) patients

Comparison of low contrast sensitivity among multi-slice CT units using various mAs setting for the potential benefit of non-MRI compatible, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) patients
Dennis N Stanley1, G Narayanasamy1, C Breton2, Nikos Papanikolaou1, Alonso N Gutierrez1
1University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
2Hospital Universitario de Canarias, Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain.

Cite this article as: Stanley D, Narayanasamy G, Breton C, Papanikolaou N, Gutierrez AN. Comparison of low contrast sensitivity among multi-slice CT units using various mAs setting for the potential benefit of non-MRI compatible, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) patients. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2014; 2(2):020237.
DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.14319/ijcto.0202.37

Conference Proceeding
[Presented at the Young Investigator’s Symposium at the 2014 Annual Meeting of Southwest Chapter of American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) in San Antonio, Texas, USA]

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the low contrast detectability sensitivity among 4-slice, 8-slice and 16-slice CT units using various mAs settings. Findings of the study may elucidate the most optimal imaging parameter for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) patients who are not MRI compatible.

Methods: Low contrast targets in the CATPHAN phantom (model: CTP 504, The Phantom Laboratory) were imaged on a 4-slice LightSpeed Advantage™ GE CT scanner (GE Healthcare, WI) and a 16- slice LightSpeed Advantage™ GE CT scanner (GE Healthcare, WI) in 8-slice and 16-slice mode. The CATPHAN CTP515 low contrast targets of size 15, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 and 2 mm for each contrast difference of 1%, 0.5% and 0.3% from the water-equivalent background was imaged using a SRS protocol. Two image sets per setting were acquired for mAs parameters of 300, 350 and 440. Images were evaluated in a blind study by three independent reviewers.

Results: Using 300,350 and 440mAs settings on the 4-slice scanner, the average smallest diameters recorded at 1% contrast were 5 ± 1 mm, 5 ± 1 mm and 5 ± 0 mm and at 0.5% were 7 ± 2 mm, 7 ± 1 mm and 6 ± 1 mm. For the 8 - slice scanner, the average smallest diameters recorded at 1% contrast were 7 ± 0 mm, 6 ± 0 mm and 5 ± 0 mm, and at 0.5% were 12 ± 3 mm, 9 ± 1 mm and 6 ± 1 mm. For the 16 - slice scanner, the average smallest diameters recorded at 1% contrast were 7 ± 1 mm, 7 ± 1 mm and 6 ± 1 mm, and at 0.5% were 11 ± 3 mm, 8 ± 1 mm and 8 ± 1 mm. A difference was observed between the 4 and 8 - slice scanners at 300mAs (p < 0.01) for each contrast level as well as the 4 and 16 slice at 440 (p < 0.01) and 350 (p < 0.01) mAs. Additionally, a difference was observed between each mAs for the 8 slice at 1% (p < 0.01) and 0.5% (p < 0.01) contrast.

Conclusion: Results demonstrate consistently improved low contrast detectability as mAs was increased. CT simulation imaging parameters can be optimized to improve low contrast sensitivity for non MRI compatible SRS patients.



FIG. 1: Sample Evaluation Image


FIG. 2: CATPHAN CTP515 low contrast module

TABLE 1: Average low contrast detectability for various contrast levels


FIG. 3: Low contrast dectecability for various mAs


Received March 19, 2014; Published Online April 08, 2014

Presenting author: Dennis N Stanley; University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.

Copyright © International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology (IJCTO)

Comments on this article

View all comments


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

------------------------------------------------------------

International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology (ISSN 2330-4049)

© International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology (IJCTO)

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the 'ijcto.org' domain to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.

------------------------------------------------------------

Number of visits since October, 2013
AmazingCounters.com