Display options
Cite
Gupta SK, Trethewey S, Brooker B, et al. Radionuclide bone scan SPECT-CT: lowering the dose of CT significantly reduces radiation dose without impacting CT image quality. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;7(2):63-73
Gupta, S. K., Trethewey, S., Brooker, B., Rutherford, N., Diffey, J., Viswanathan, S., & Attia, J. (2017). Radionuclide bone scan SPECT-CT: lowering the dose of CT significantly reduces radiation dose without impacting CT image quality. American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 7(2), 63-73.
Gupta, Sandeep Kumar, et al. "Radionuclide bone scan SPECT-CT: lowering the dose of CT significantly reduces radiation dose without impacting CT image quality." American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging vol. 7,2 (2017): 63-73.
Gupta SK, Trethewey S, Brooker B, Rutherford N, Diffey J, Viswanathan S, Attia J. Radionuclide bone scan SPECT-CT: lowering the dose of CT significantly reduces radiation dose without impacting CT image quality. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Apr 15;7(2):63-73. eCollection 2017. PMID: 28533938; PMCID: PMC5435612.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Apr 15;7(2):63-73. eCollection 2017.

Radionuclide bone scan SPECT-CT: lowering the dose of CT significantly reduces radiation dose without impacting CT image quality.

American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging

Sandeep Kumar Gupta, Scott Trethewey, Bree Brooker, Natalie Rutherford, Jenny Diffey, Suresh Viswanathan, John Attia

Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET, John Hunter and Calvary Mater Hospitals, Conjoint Lecturer-University of NewcastleNewcastle, NSW, Australia.
  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET, John Hunter and Calvary Mater HospitalsNewcastle, NSW, Australia.
  3. Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET, John Hunter, Calvary Mater and Tamworth Base HospitalsNewcastle, NSW, Australia.
  4. Department of Medicine, John Hunter Hospital, Professor-School of Medicine and Public Health-University of Newcastle, Hunter Medical Research InstituteNewcastle, NSW, Australia.

PMID: 28533938 PMCID: PMC5435612

Abstract

The CT component of SPECT-CT is required for attenuation correction and anatomical localization of the uptake on SPECT but there is no guideline about the optimal CT acquisition parameters. In our department, a standard CT acquisition protocol was changed in 2013 to give lower radiation dose to the patient. In this study, we retrospectively compared the effects on patient dose as well as the CT image quality with current versus older CT protocols. Ninety nine consecutive patients [n=51 Standard dose 'old' protocol (SDP); n=48 lower dose 'new' protocol (LDP)] with lumbar spine SPECT-CT for bone scan were examined. The main differences between the two protocols were that SDP used 130 kVp tube voltage and reference current-time product of 70 mAs whereas the LDP used 110 kVp and 40 mAs respectively. Various quantitative parameters from the CT images were obtained and the images were also rated blindly by two experienced nuclear medicine physicians for bony definition and noise. The mean calculated dose length product of the LDP group (121.5±39.6 mGy.cm) was significantly lower compared to the SDP group patients (266.9±96.9 mGy.cm; P<0.0001). This translated into a significant reduction in the mean effective dose to 1.8 mSv from 4.0 mSv. The physicians reported better CT image quality for the bony structures in LDP group although for soft tissue structures, the SDP group had better image quality. The optimized new CT acquisition protocol significantly reduced the radiation dose to the patient and in-fact improved CT image quality for the assessment of bony structures.

Keywords: CT; DLP; SPECT; kVp; low dose; mAs

Conflict of interest statement

None.

References

  1. Nucl Med Commun. 2012 Sep;33(9):926-32 - PubMed
  2. Eur Radiol. 2010 Jul;20(7):1624-30 - PubMed
  3. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 Jun;33(6):1014-9 - PubMed
  4. Int J Mol Imaging. 2011;2011:897202 - PubMed
  5. Joint Bone Spine. 2009 Oct;76(5):474-80 - PubMed
  6. Nucl Med Commun. 2015 Nov;36(11):1150-4 - PubMed
  7. Nucl Med Commun. 2012 Feb;33(2):164-70 - PubMed
  8. Br J Radiol. 2006 Dec;79(948):968-80 - PubMed
  9. Semin Nucl Med. 2014 May;44(3):193-201 - PubMed
  10. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 May;41 Suppl 1:S125-36 - PubMed
  11. J Nucl Med Technol. 2010 Dec;38(4):181-5 - PubMed
  12. Med Phys. 2014 Apr;41(4):042502 - PubMed
  13. Invest Radiol. 2009 Dec;44(12 ):793-9 - PubMed
  14. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2016 Dec;172(4):438-442 - PubMed
  15. J Nucl Med. 2006 Jul;47(7):1227-34 - PubMed
  16. J Nucl Med. 2005 Apr;46(4):608-13 - PubMed
  17. Invest Radiol. 2008 Dec;43(12 ):871-6 - PubMed
  18. Clin Radiol. 2014 Aug;69(8):804-11 - PubMed
  19. Am J Epidemiol. 1998 Jan 15;147(2):167-72 - PubMed
  20. Clin Radiol. 2012 Sep;67(9):833-9 - PubMed
  21. J Am Coll Radiol. 2008 Apr;5(4):579-84 - PubMed
  22. Nutrition. 2003 Jul-Aug;19(7-8):597-604 - PubMed

Publication Types