Evaluation of Radiation Dose and Image Quality in Clinical Routine Protocols from Three Different CT Scanners

Computed tomography examination plays a vital role in imaging and its use has rapidly increased in radiology diagnosis. This study aimed to assess radiation doses of routine CT protocols of the brain, chest, and abdomen in three different CT scanners, together with a qualitative image quality assess...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Thawatchai Prabsattroo, Jiranthanin Phaorod, Piyaphat Tathuwan, Khanitta Tongluan, Puengjai Punikhom, Tongjit Maharantawong, Waraporn Sudchai
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2025-02-01
Series:Journal of Imaging
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2313-433X/11/3/70
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850280138875338752
author Thawatchai Prabsattroo
Jiranthanin Phaorod
Piyaphat Tathuwan
Khanitta Tongluan
Puengjai Punikhom
Tongjit Maharantawong
Waraporn Sudchai
author_facet Thawatchai Prabsattroo
Jiranthanin Phaorod
Piyaphat Tathuwan
Khanitta Tongluan
Puengjai Punikhom
Tongjit Maharantawong
Waraporn Sudchai
author_sort Thawatchai Prabsattroo
collection DOAJ
description Computed tomography examination plays a vital role in imaging and its use has rapidly increased in radiology diagnosis. This study aimed to assess radiation doses of routine CT protocols of the brain, chest, and abdomen in three different CT scanners, together with a qualitative image quality assessment. Methods: A picture archiving and communication system (PACS) and Radimetrics software version 3.4.2 retrospectively collected patients’ radiation doses. Radiation doses were recorded as the CTDI<sub>vol</sub>, dose length product, and effective dose. CT images were acquired using the Catphan700 phantom to evaluate image quality. Results: The findings revealed that median values for the CTDI<sub>vol</sub> and DLP across the brain, chest, and abdomen protocols were lower than the national and international DRLs. Effective doses for brain, chest, and abdomen protocols were also below the median value of R. Smith-Bindman. Neusoft achieved higher spatial frequencies in brain protocols, while Siemens outperformed others in chest protocols. Neusoft consistently exhibited superior high-contrast resolution. Siemens and Neusoft outperformed low-contrast detectability, while Siemens also outperformed the contrast-to-noise ratio. In addition, Siemens had the lowest image noise in brain protocols and high uniformity in chest and abdomen protocols. Neusoft showed the lowest noise in chest and abdomen protocols and high uniformity in the brain protocol. The noise power spectrum revealed that Philips had the highest noise magnitude with different noise textures across protocols and scanners. Conclusions: This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of radiation doses and image quality for three different CT scanners using standard clinical protocols. Almost all CT protocols exhibited radiation doses below the DRLs and demonstrated varying image qualities across each protocol and scanner. Selecting the right CT scanner for each protocol is essential to ensure that the CT images exhibit the best quality among a wide range of CT machines. The MTF, HCR, LCD, CNR, NPS, noise, and uniformity are suitable parameters for evaluating and monitoring image quality.
format Article
id doaj-art-596317e1aedf40989a1b8d0d84d4f28e
institution OA Journals
issn 2313-433X
language English
publishDate 2025-02-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
series Journal of Imaging
spelling doaj-art-596317e1aedf40989a1b8d0d84d4f28e2025-08-20T01:48:52ZengMDPI AGJournal of Imaging2313-433X2025-02-011137010.3390/jimaging11030070Evaluation of Radiation Dose and Image Quality in Clinical Routine Protocols from Three Different CT ScannersThawatchai Prabsattroo0Jiranthanin Phaorod1Piyaphat Tathuwan2Khanitta Tongluan3Puengjai Punikhom4Tongjit Maharantawong5Waraporn Sudchai6Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, ThailandDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, ThailandDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, ThailandDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, ThailandDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, ThailandDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, ThailandNuclear Technology Service Center, Thailand Institute of Nuclear Technology, Nakorn Nayok 26120, ThailandComputed tomography examination plays a vital role in imaging and its use has rapidly increased in radiology diagnosis. This study aimed to assess radiation doses of routine CT protocols of the brain, chest, and abdomen in three different CT scanners, together with a qualitative image quality assessment. Methods: A picture archiving and communication system (PACS) and Radimetrics software version 3.4.2 retrospectively collected patients’ radiation doses. Radiation doses were recorded as the CTDI<sub>vol</sub>, dose length product, and effective dose. CT images were acquired using the Catphan700 phantom to evaluate image quality. Results: The findings revealed that median values for the CTDI<sub>vol</sub> and DLP across the brain, chest, and abdomen protocols were lower than the national and international DRLs. Effective doses for brain, chest, and abdomen protocols were also below the median value of R. Smith-Bindman. Neusoft achieved higher spatial frequencies in brain protocols, while Siemens outperformed others in chest protocols. Neusoft consistently exhibited superior high-contrast resolution. Siemens and Neusoft outperformed low-contrast detectability, while Siemens also outperformed the contrast-to-noise ratio. In addition, Siemens had the lowest image noise in brain protocols and high uniformity in chest and abdomen protocols. Neusoft showed the lowest noise in chest and abdomen protocols and high uniformity in the brain protocol. The noise power spectrum revealed that Philips had the highest noise magnitude with different noise textures across protocols and scanners. Conclusions: This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of radiation doses and image quality for three different CT scanners using standard clinical protocols. Almost all CT protocols exhibited radiation doses below the DRLs and demonstrated varying image qualities across each protocol and scanner. Selecting the right CT scanner for each protocol is essential to ensure that the CT images exhibit the best quality among a wide range of CT machines. The MTF, HCR, LCD, CNR, NPS, noise, and uniformity are suitable parameters for evaluating and monitoring image quality.https://www.mdpi.com/2313-433X/11/3/70radiation doseimage qualityhigh-contrast resolutionlow-contrast detectability
spellingShingle Thawatchai Prabsattroo
Jiranthanin Phaorod
Piyaphat Tathuwan
Khanitta Tongluan
Puengjai Punikhom
Tongjit Maharantawong
Waraporn Sudchai
Evaluation of Radiation Dose and Image Quality in Clinical Routine Protocols from Three Different CT Scanners
Journal of Imaging
radiation dose
image quality
high-contrast resolution
low-contrast detectability
title Evaluation of Radiation Dose and Image Quality in Clinical Routine Protocols from Three Different CT Scanners
title_full Evaluation of Radiation Dose and Image Quality in Clinical Routine Protocols from Three Different CT Scanners
title_fullStr Evaluation of Radiation Dose and Image Quality in Clinical Routine Protocols from Three Different CT Scanners
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Radiation Dose and Image Quality in Clinical Routine Protocols from Three Different CT Scanners
title_short Evaluation of Radiation Dose and Image Quality in Clinical Routine Protocols from Three Different CT Scanners
title_sort evaluation of radiation dose and image quality in clinical routine protocols from three different ct scanners
topic radiation dose
image quality
high-contrast resolution
low-contrast detectability
url https://www.mdpi.com/2313-433X/11/3/70
work_keys_str_mv AT thawatchaiprabsattroo evaluationofradiationdoseandimagequalityinclinicalroutineprotocolsfromthreedifferentctscanners
AT jiranthaninphaorod evaluationofradiationdoseandimagequalityinclinicalroutineprotocolsfromthreedifferentctscanners
AT piyaphattathuwan evaluationofradiationdoseandimagequalityinclinicalroutineprotocolsfromthreedifferentctscanners
AT khanittatongluan evaluationofradiationdoseandimagequalityinclinicalroutineprotocolsfromthreedifferentctscanners
AT puengjaipunikhom evaluationofradiationdoseandimagequalityinclinicalroutineprotocolsfromthreedifferentctscanners
AT tongjitmaharantawong evaluationofradiationdoseandimagequalityinclinicalroutineprotocolsfromthreedifferentctscanners
AT warapornsudchai evaluationofradiationdoseandimagequalityinclinicalroutineprotocolsfromthreedifferentctscanners