Head and neck single- and dual-energy CT: differences in radiation dose and image quality of 2nd and 3rd generation dual-source CT.

Abstract

Objectives:To compare radiation dose and image quality of single-energy (SECT) and dual-energy (DECT) head and neck CT examinations performed with second- and third-generation dual-source CT (DSCT) in matched patient cohorts.Methods:200 patients (mean age 55.1 ± 16.9 years) who underwent venous phase head and neck CT with a vendor-preset protocol were retrospectively divided into four equal groups (n = 50) matched by gender and BMI: second (Group A, SECT, 100-kV; Group B, DECT, 80/Sn140-kV), and third-generation DSCT (Group C, SECT, 100-kV; Group D, DECT, 90/Sn150-kV). Assessment of radiation dose was performed for an average scan length of 27 cm. Contrast-to-noise ratio measurements and dose-independent figure-of-merit calculations of the submandibular gland, thyroid, internal jugular vein, and common carotid artery were analyzed quantitatively. Qualitative image parameters were evaluated regarding overall image quality, artifacts and reader confidence using 5-point Likert scales.Results:Effective radiation dose (ED) was not significantly different between SECT and DECT acquisition for each scanner generation (p = 0.10). Significantly lower effective radiation dose (p < 0.01) values were observed for third-generation DSCT groups C (1.1 ± 0.2 mSv) and D (1.0 ± 0.3 mSv) compared to second-generation DSCT groups A (1.8 ± 0.1 mSv) and B (1.6 ± 0.2 mSv). Figure-of-merit/contrast-to-noise ratio analysis revealed superior results for third-generation DECT Group D compared to all other groups. Qualitative image parameters showed non-significant differences between all groups (p > 0.06).Conclusion:Contrast-enhanced head and neck DECT can be performed with second- and third-generation DSCT systems without radiation penalty or impaired image quality compared with SECT, while third-generation DSCT is the most dose efficient acquisition method.Advances in knowledge:Differences in radiation dose between SECT and DECT of the dose-vulnerable head and neck region using DSCT systems have not been evaluated so far. Therefore, this study directly compares radiation dose and image quality of standard SECT and DECT protocols of second- and third-generation DSCT platforms.