Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Apr;21(4):87-94.
doi: 10.1002/acm2.12857. Epub 2020 Apr 6.

Patient size matters: Effect of tube current modulation on size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) and image quality in low-dose lung cancer screening CT

Affiliations

Patient size matters: Effect of tube current modulation on size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) and image quality in low-dose lung cancer screening CT

Izabella Barreto et al. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020 Apr.

Abstract

Purpose: We compare the effect of tube current modulation (TCM) and fixed tube current (FTC) on size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) and image quality in lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) for patients of all sizes.

Methods: Initially, 107 lung screening examinations were performed using FTC, which satisfied the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' volumetric CT dose index (CTDIvol ) limit of 3.0 mGy for standard-sized patients. Following protocol modification, 287 examinations were performed using TCM. Patient size and examination parameters were collected and water-equivalent diameter (Dw ) and SSDE were determined for each patient. Regression models were used to correlate CTDIvol and SSDE with Dw . Objective and subjective image quality were measured in 20 patients who had consecutive annual screenings with both FTC and TCM.

Results: CTDIvol was 2.3 mGy for all FTC scans and increased exponentially with Dw (range = 0.96-4.50 mGy, R2 = 0.73) for TCM scans. As patient Dw increased, SSDE decreased for FTC examinations (R2 = 1) and increased for TCM examinations (R2 = 0.54). Image quality measurements were superior with FTC for smaller sized patients and with TCM for larger sized patients (R2 > 0.5, P < 0.005). Radiologist graded all images acceptable for diagnostic evaluation of lung cancer screening.

Conclusion: Although FTC protocol offered a consistently low CTDIvol for all patients, it yielded unnecessarily high SSDE for small patients and increased image noise for large patients. Lung cancer screening with LDCT using TCM produces radiation doses that are appropriately reduced for small patients and increased for large patients with diagnostic image quality for all patients.

Keywords: image quality; lung cancer screening CT; radiation dose; size-specific dose estimates; tube current modulation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
(a) CTDIvol and (b) SSDE as a function of patient Dw for examinations performed with FTC and TCM. CTDIvol, volumetric CT dose index; Dw, water‐equivalent diameter; FTC, fixed tube current; TCM, tube current modulation.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
(a) Noise and (b) CNR as a function of patient Dw for examinations performed with FTC and TCM. CNR, contrast to noise ratio; Dw, water‐equivalent diameter; FTC, fixed tube current; TCM, tube current modulation.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Average subjective image quality scores for evaluation of lung detail, image noise, and soft tissue visualization as a function of patient Dw . Scores are described in Table 3. Dw, water‐equivalent diameter.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Axial images of the smallest sized patient who received annual lung cancer screening CT examinations scanned with (a) FTC the first year and (b) TCM the second year. FTC, fixed tube current; TCM, tube current modulation.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Axial lung images of the largest sized patient who received annual lung cancer screening CT examinations scanned with (a) FTC the first year and (b) TCM the second year. FTC, fixed tube current; TCM, tube current modulation.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2018. Ca Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:7–30. - PubMed
    1. Pearson FG. Current status of surgical resection for lung cancer. Chest. 1994;106:337S–339S. - PubMed
    1. Birring SS, Peake MD. Symptoms and the early diagnosis of lung cancer. Thorax. 2005;60:268–269. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aberle DR, Berg CD, Black WC, et al. The national lung screening trial: overview and study design. Radiology. 2011;258:243–253. - PMC - PubMed
    1. The National Lung Screening Trial Research Team . Reduced lung‐cancer mortality with low‐dose computed tomography screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:395–409. - PMC - PubMed