HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wessling, J. Articles by Heindel, W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wessling, J. Articles by Heindel, W.

CT Colonography: Protocol Optimization with Multi–Detector Row CT—Study in an Anthropomorphic Colon Phantom¹

¹ From the Department of Clinical Radiology, University of Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Strasse 33, 48 149 Muenster, Germany. Received August 1, 2002; revision requested October 1; final revision received December 9; accepted January 2, 2003. Address correspondence to J.W. (e-mail: weslingj@uni-muenster.de).

PURPOSE: To determine optimal detector collimation, section thickness, and tube current for multi–detector row computed tomography (CT) colonography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anthropomorphic colon phantom with simulated polyps of varying size (2, 6, 8, 10, and 12 mm) was examined by using multi–detector row CT with varying combinations of detector collimation (4 x 1.0 mm and 4 x 2.5 mm), dose per section (10, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, and 140 mAs), and section thickness/reconstruction interval (1.25/0.6, 2.0/1.0, 3.0/1.0, and 5.0/2.0 mm). Polyp depiction, longitudinal polyp distortion, and presence of rippling artifacts were assessed on reformatted three-dimensional endoluminal images by three reviewers.

RESULTS: Longitudinal distortion and rippling artifacts increased with increasing section thickness and use of broader detector collimation. Polyps 8 mm or larger were depicted with any combination of section thickness, detector collimation, and tube current. Depiction of polyps 6 mm or smaller depended on the detector collimation/reconstructed section thickness and was rated optimal for the 4 x 1.0-mm detector collimation with a section thickness of 1.25 mm. This was also observed for low-dose protocols. Polyps 6 mm or smaller that were not detected with 3-mm section thickness and 4 x 2.5-mm detector collimation were detected with 1.25-mm section thickness and 10 mAs.

CONCLUSION: A narrow detector collimation with thin-section imaging (4 x 1.0-mm detector collimation, 1.25-mm section thickness) is a prerequisite for low-dose (10-mAs) multi–detector row CT colonography.

© RSNA, 2003

Index terms: Colon, CT, 75.1211 • Computed tomography (CT), multi–detector row, 70.12119 • Computed tomography (CT), technology • Computed tomography (CT), three-dimensional • Phantoms

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. H. de Vries, H. W. Venema, J. Florie, C. Y. Nio, and J. Stoker Influence of Tagged Fecal Material on Detectability of Colorectal Polyps at CT: Phantom Study Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2008; 191(4): W181 - W189. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. H. Kim, J. M. Lee, C.-I. Shin, H. C. Kim, J.-G. Lee, J. H. Kim, J. Y. Choi, H. W. Eun, J. K. Han, J. Y. Lee, et al. Effects of Spatial Resolution and Tube Current on Computer-aided Detection of Polyps on CT Colonographic Images: Phantom Study Radiology, August 1, 2008; 248(2): 492 - 503. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E J HALL and D J BRENNER Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology Br. J. Radiol., May 1, 2008; 81(965): 362 - 378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. D. Johnson, J. G. Fletcher, R. L. MacCarty, J. N. Mandrekar, W. S. Harmsen, P. J. Limburg, and L. A. Wilson Effect of Slice Thickness and Primary 2D Versus 3D Virtual Dissection on Colorectal Lesion Detection at CT Colonography in 452 Asymptomatic Adults Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2007; 189(3): 672 - 680. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Wessling, R. Fischbach, A. Borchert, H. Kugel, T. Allkemper, N. Osada, and W. Heindel Detection of Colorectal Polyps: Comparison of Multi-Detector Row CT and MR Colonography in a Colon Phantom Radiology, October 1, 2006; 241(1): 125 - 131. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Macari and E. J. Bini CT Colonography: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going? Radiology, December 1, 2005; 237(3): 819 - 833. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Ozgun, E. Rollven, L. Blomqvist, S. Bremmer, R. Odh, and A. Fransson Polyp Detection with MDCT: A Phantom-Based Evaluation of the Impact of Dose and Spatial Resolution Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2005; 184(4): 1181 - 1188. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. A. Barish, J. A. Soto, and J. T. Ferrucci Consensus on Current Clinical Practice of Virtual Colonoscopy Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2005; 184(3): 786 - 792. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Cohnen, C. Vogt, A. Beck, K. Andersen, W. Heinen, S. vom Dahl, V. Aurich, D. Haeussinger, and U. Moedder Feasibility of MDCT Colonography in Ultra-Low-Dose Technique in the Detection of Colorectal Lesions: Comparison with High-Resolution Video Colonoscopy Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2004; 183(5): 1355 - 1359. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]