Keith T. Chan

Standard and Reduced Radiation Dose Liver CT Images: Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction versus Model-based Iterative Reconstruction—Comparison of Findings and Image Quality

PURPOSE To investigate whether reduced radiation dose liver computed tomography (CT) images reconstructed with model-based iterative reconstruction ( MBIR model-based iterative reconstruction ) might compromise depiction of clinically relevant findings or might have decreased image quality when compared with clinical standard radiation dose CT images reconstructed with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction ( ASIR adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction ). MATERIALS AND METHODS With institutional review board approval, informed consent, and HIPAA compliance, 50 patients (39 men, 11 women) were prospectively included who underwent liver CT. After a portal venous pass with ASIR adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction images, a 60% reduced radiation dose pass was added with MBIR model-based iterative reconstruction images. One reviewer scored ASIR adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction image quality and marked findings. Two additional independent reviewers noted whether marked findings were present on MBIR model-based iterative reconstruction images and assigned scores for relative conspicuity, spatial resolution, image noise, and image quality. Liver and aorta Hounsfield units and image noise were measured. Volume CT dose index and size-specific dose estimate ( SSDE size-specific dose estimate ) were recorded. Qualitative reviewer scores were summarized. Formal statistical inference for signal-to-noise ratio ( SNR signal-to-noise ratio ), contrast-to-noise ratio ( CNR contrast-to-noise ratio ), volume CT dose index, and SSDE size-specific dose estimate was made (paired t tests), with Bonferroni adjustment. RESULTS Two independent reviewers identified all 136 ASIR adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction image findings (n = 272) on MBIR model-based iterative reconstruction images, scoring them as equal or better for conspicuity, spatial resolution, and image noise in 94.1% (256 of 272), 96.7% (263 of 272), and 99.3% (270 of 272), respectively. In 50 image sets, two reviewers (n = 100) scored overall image quality as sufficient or good with MBIR model-based iterative reconstruction in 99% (99 of 100). Liver SNR signal-to-noise ratio was significantly greater for MBIR model-based iterative reconstruction (10.8 ± 2.5 [standard deviation] vs 7.7 ± 1.4, P < .001); there was no difference for CNR contrast-to-noise ratio (2.5 ± 1.4 vs 2.4 ± 1.4, P = .45). For ASIR adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and MBIR model-based iterative reconstruction , respectively, volume CT dose index was 15.2 mGy ± 7.6 versus 6.2 mGy ± 3.6; SSDE size-specific dose estimate was 16.4 mGy ± 6.6 versus 6.7 mGy ± 3.1 (P < .001). CONCLUSION Liver CT images reconstructed with MBIR model-based iterative reconstruction may allow up to 59% radiation dose reduction compared with the dose with ASIR adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction , without compromising depiction of findings or image quality.

Dual-energy CT Aortography with 50% Reduced Iodine Dose Versus Single-energy CT Aortography with Standard Iodine Dose.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES Because many patients with aortic pathology also have compromised renal function, we wished to investigate dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) aortography with 50% reduced iodine dose compared to single-energy computed tomography (SECT) aortography with standard iodine dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS Fifty patients had DECT aortography with 50% reduced iodine dose. Thirty-four of these patients had prior SECT aortography with standard iodine dose. DECT images were reconstructed at both 50 and 77 keV and were compared to SECT 120 kVp images. Reviewers measured aortic attenuation, image noise, and scored vascular enhancement. Signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) were calculated. Volume CT dose index was recorded. RESULTS Mean iodine dose was 47 g for SECT and 24 g for DECT. Aortic attenuation was highest at reduced iodine dose DECT 50 keV (570 ± 105 Hounsfield units [HU]) compared to 77 keV (239 ± 40 HU) or to standard iodine dose SECT 120 kVp (356 ± 69 HU) (P < 0.05). Image noise was greatest at 50 keV compared to 77 keV and 120 kVp (P < 0.05) but was similar between 77 keV and 120 kVp (P > 0.05). SNR and CNR were the same at 50 keV and 120 kVp (P > 0.05). Mean vascular enhancement scores were all above 3.0 (good, typical enhancement). Volume CT dose index was 11.7 mGy for DECT and 11.8 mGy for SECT (P = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS DECT aortography with 50% reduced iodine reconstructed at 50 keV resulted in significantly greater aortic attenuation, good subjective vascular enhancement, and comparable SNR and CNR compared to standard iodine dose SECT. DECT image noise at 77 keV was similar to SECT at 120 kVp.

Pharmacokinetics of diclofenac sodium in chronic active hepatitis and alcoholic cirrhosis

The objective of this study was to assess the pharmacokinetics of diclofenac sodium and its five metabolites following administration of a 150 mg oral dose to healthy subjects and patients with either chronic active hepatitis of varying morphology or alcoholic cirrhosis. Six healthy subjects, 6 chronic active hepatitis patients, and 6 alcoholic cirrhosis patients were enrolled in this prospective, open‐label, parallel study. Blood samples were drawn at 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75,1,2,4,6,8,12, 24, 48, 72, 144, 312, and 480 hours, and urine samples were collected for 144 hours after administration of a single oral dose of diclofenac sodium. The mean area under the serum concentration‐time curve extrapolated to infinity, oral clearance, half‐life, maximal concentration, and time to peak concentration for diclofenac and its metabolites were determined and compared using analysis of variance. Cirrhotics had a mean ± SD diclofenac AUC value (19,114 ± 6806ng•h/ml) significantly different (p < 0.02) from hepatitis patients (6071 ± 1867 ng•h/ml) and healthy subjects (7008 ± 2006 ng•hlml), whereas healthy subjects and hepatitis patients had similar values. Comparable results were found for 4′‐hydroxydiclofenac. The AUC values for 3′‐hydroxydiclofenac and 3′‐hydroxy‐4′methoxydiclofeanc were significantly different when healthy subjects were compared to cirrhotics. However, hepatitis subjects were not significantly different from either group. The results indicate that hepatitis does not alter the pharmacokinetics of diclofenac. Alcoholic cirrhosis increased the mean diclofenac AUC approximately three times compared to normal subjects, indicating that one‐third of the usual dose in cirrhotics would produce equivalent AUC values in normal subjects and subjects with alcoholic cirrhosis. However, since pharmacodynamic measurements were not made and no increase in untoward or side effects was noted in the alcoholic cirrhosis patients after a single dose, maintenance doses should be titrated to patient response.

Toward treatment of abscesses using non-thermal HIFU

Abscesses are infected walled-off collections of pus and bacteria. They can affect any part of the body. Current treatment is typically limited to antibiotics, catheter drainage and hospitalization, or surgical wash-out when inaccessible, loculated or unresponsive to initial care efforts. Although bacteria can develop drug resistance, they remain susceptible to thermal and mechanical damage. High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) generates localized heating and cavitation, and represents a potential new noninvasive treatment modality. This talk describes initial experiments in which non-thermal HIFU treatment was used to inactivate small volumes (100 μL—10 mL) of Escherichia colisuspensions (~1 × 109 cells/mL) with 1 or 2-MHz transducers. Free-field focal acoustic pressures were as high as 16 (9.9) MPa peak positive (negative). Survival was assessed by coliform counting, and by alamarBlue® vital staining. At duty factors of 0.01 or 0.2, and the highest acoustic pressures, there was no biologically signi...

Diclofenac Kinetics in Patients with Liver Disease

Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (1996) 59, 149–149; doi: 10.1038/sj.clpt.1996.94