» Articles » PMID: 30143850

Effects of Virtual Tube Current Reduction and Sparse Sampling on MDCT-based Femoral BMD Measurements

Overview
Journal Osteoporos Int
Date 2018 Aug 26
PMID 30143850
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: The study aims to evaluate the effects of radiation dose reduction by using virtual reduction of tube current or sparse sampling combined with standard filtered back projection (FBP) and statistical iterative reconstruction (SIR) on femoral bone mineral density (BMD) measurements derived from multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT).

Methods: In routine MDCT scans of 41 subjects (65.9% men; age 69.3 ± 10.1 years), reduced radiation doses were simulated by lowering tube currents and applying sparse sampling (50, 25, and 10% of the original tube current and projections, respectively). Images were reconstructed using FBP and SIR. BMD values were assessed in the femoral neck and compared between the different dose levels, numbers of projections, and image reconstruction approaches.

Results: Compared to full-dose MDCT, virtual lowering of the tube current by applying our simulation algorithm resulted in increases in BMD values for both FBP (up to a relative change of 32.5%) and SIR (up to a relative change of 32.3%). In contrast, the application of sparse sampling with a reduction down to 10% of projections showed robust BMD values, with clinically acceptable relative changes of up to 0.5% (FBP) and 0.7% (SIR).

Conclusions: Our simulations, which still require clinical validation, indicate that reductions down to ultra-low tube currents have a significant impact on MDCT-based femoral BMD measurements. In contrast, the application of sparse-sampled MDCT seems a promising future clinical option that may enable a significant reduction of the radiation dose without considerable changes of BMD values.

Citing Articles

Impact of dose reduction and iterative model reconstruction on multi-detector CT imaging of the brain in patients with suspected ischemic stroke.

Paprottka K, Kupfer K, Riederer I, Zimmer C, Beer M, Noel P Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):22271.

PMID: 34782654 PMC: 8593148. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-01162-0.


Low-dose MDCT: evaluation of the impact of systematic tube current reduction and sparse sampling on quantitative paraspinal muscle assessment.

Burian E, Sollmann N, Mei K, Dieckmeyer M, Juncker D, Loffler M Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2021; 11(7):3042-3050.

PMID: 34249633 PMC: 8250008. DOI: 10.21037/qims-20-1220.


Finite Element Analysis-Based Vertebral Bone Strength Prediction Using MDCT Data: How Low Can We Go?.

Rayudu N, Subburaj K, Mei K, Dieckmeyer M, Kirschke J, Noel P Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020; 11:442.

PMID: 32849260 PMC: 7399039. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2020.00442.


Multi-detector CT imaging: impact of virtual tube current reduction and sparse sampling on detection of vertebral fractures.

Sollmann N, Mei K, Hedderich D, Maegerlein C, Kopp F, Loffler M Eur Radiol. 2019; 29(7):3606-3616.

PMID: 30903337 PMC: 6554251. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06090-2.

References
1.
Yi J, Park H, Lee S, Rho M, Hong H, Choi Y . Radiation dose reduction in multidetector CT in fracture evaluation. Br J Radiol. 2017; 90(1077):20170240. PMC: 5858798. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20170240. View

2.
Schuit S, van der Klift M, Weel A, de Laet C, Burger H, Seeman E . Fracture incidence and association with bone mineral density in elderly men and women: the Rotterdam Study. Bone. 2004; 34(1):195-202. DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2003.10.001. View

3.
Willemink M, de Jong P, Leiner T, de Heer L, Nievelstein R, Budde R . Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography Part 1: technical principles. Eur Radiol. 2013; 23(6):1623-31. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-012-2765-y. View

4.
Schindelin J, Rueden C, Hiner M, Eliceiri K . The ImageJ ecosystem: An open platform for biomedical image analysis. Mol Reprod Dev. 2015; 82(7-8):518-29. PMC: 5428984. DOI: 10.1002/mrd.22489. View

5.
Abbas S, Lee T, Shin S, Lee R, Cho S . Effects of sparse sampling schemes on image quality in low-dose CT. Med Phys. 2013; 40(11):111915. DOI: 10.1118/1.4825096. View