Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2012.13.4.1714

A Study on Various Automatic Exposure Control System in Multi-Detector Computed Tomography by Using Human Phantom  

Kim, Yong-Ok (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital)
Seoung, Youl-Hun (Department of Radiological Science, Cheongju University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society / v.13, no.4, 2012 , pp. 1714-1720 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to evaluation of the radiation dose reduction and the possibility of the maintainability of the adequate image quality using various automatic exposure control (AEC) systems in multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT). We used three AEC systems for the study: General Electric Healthcare (Auto-mA 3D), Philips Medical systems (DoseRight) and Siemens Medical Solutions (Care Dose 4D). The general scanning protocol was created for the each examination with the same scanning parameters as many as possible. In the various AEC systems, the evaluation of reduced-dose was evaluated by comparing to fixed mAs with using human phantom. The image quality of the phantom was evaluated with measuring the image noise (standard deviation) by insert regions of interests. Finally, when we applied to AEC for three manufacturers, the radiation dose reduction decreased each 35.3% in the Auto-mA 3D, 58.2% in the DoseRight, and 48.6% in the Care Dose 4D. And, there was not statistical significant difference among the image quality in the Strong/Weak of the Care Dose 4D(P=.269). This applies to variety of the AEC systems which will be very useful to reduce the dose and to maintain the high quality.
Keywords
Multi-Detector Computed Tomography; Automatic Exposure Control; Radiation Dose Reduction; Image Quality;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Mulkens, T. H. Bellinck, P. Baeyaert, M. and et al "Use of an automatic exposure control mechanism for dose optimization in multi- detector row CT examinations: clinical evaluation", Radiol, 237, pp. 213-223, 2005.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Kalra, M. K. Naz, N. Rizzo, S. M. and Blake, M. A. "Computed Tomography Radiation Dose optimization: Scanning Protocols and Clinical Applications of Automatic Exposure Control", Curr Probl Diagn Radiol, 34, pp. 171-181, 2005.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Gutierrez, D. Schmidt, S. Denys, A. and et al CT-automatic exposure control devices: What are their performances?", Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 580, pp. 990-995, 2007.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 McCollough, C. H. Bruesewitz, M. R. and Kofler, J. M. "CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options", Radiographics, 26, pp. 503-512, 2006.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Tsapaki, V. Aldrich, J. E. Sharma, R. and et al "Dose reduction in CT while maintaining diagnostic confidence: diagnostic reference levels at routine head, chest, and abdominal CT-IAEA-coordinated research project", Radiol, 240(3), pp. 828-834, 2006.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 IEC, "Medical Electrical Equipment. Part 2-44: Particular requirements for the safety of x-ray equipment for computed tomography", IEC publication No. 60601-2-44. Ed. 2.1. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Central Office, Geneva, Switzerland, 2002.
7 EC, European Commission. "European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography", Report EUR 16262 EN. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2000.
8 American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Report No 96. The Measurement, Reporting, and Management of Radiation Dose in CT. New York: AAPM, 2008.
9 Kalra, M. K. Maher, M. M. Toth, T. L. and et al. "Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization", Radiology, 230, pp. 619-628, 2004.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Söderberg, M. and Gunnarsson, M. "Automatic exposure control in computed tomography an evaluation of systems from different manu-facturers. Acta Radiologica, 6, pp. 625-634, 2010.
11 Dawson, P. "Patient dose in multi-slice CT: Why is it increasing and does it matter?", Br J Radiol, 77, pp. S10-13, 2004.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Lewis, M. Keat, N. and Edyvean, S. "Report 06013: 32 to 64 slice CT scanner comparison report version 14", London, England ImPACT, 2006.
13 Yates, S. J. Pike, L. C. and Goldstone, K. E. "Effect of multi-slice scanners on patient dose from routine CT examination in East Anglia", Br J Radiol, 77, pp. 472-478, 2004.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Namasivayama, S. Kalraa, M. K. Pottalaa, K. M. and et al. "Optimization of Z-Axis Automatic Exposure Control for Multi-detector Row CT Evaluation of Neck and Comparison with Fixed Tube Current Technique for Image Quality and Radiation Dose", Am J Neuroradiol, 27, pp. 2221-2225, 2008.
15 Nicholas, K. "report 05016: CT canner automatic exposure control systems", MHRA, 2005.
16 Rizzo, S. Kalra, M. Schmidt, B. and et al "Comparison of angular and combined automatic tube current modulation techniques with constant tube current CT of the abdomen and pelvis", Am J Roentgenol, 186, pp. 673-79, 2006.   DOI   ScienceOn