Optimisation of CT protocols in PET-CT across different scanner models using different automatic exposure control methods and iterative reconstruction algorithms

Abstract

Background: A significant proportion of the radiation dose from a PET-CT examination is dependent on the CT protocol, which should be optimised for clinical purposes. Matching protocols on different scanners within an imaging centre is important for the consistency of image quality and dose. This paper describes our experience translating low-dose CT protocols between scanner models utilising different automatic exposure control (AEC) methods and reconstruction algorithms. Methods: The scanners investigated were a newly installed Siemens Biograph mCT PET with 64-slice SOMATOM Definition AS CT using sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) and two GE Discovery 710 PET scanners with 128-slice Optima 660 CT using adaptive statistical reconstruction (ASiR). Following exploratory phantom work, 33 adult patients of various sizes were scanned using the Siemens scanner and matched to patients scanned using our established GE protocol to give 33 patient pairs. A comparison of volumetric CT dose index (CTDIvol) and image noise within these patient pairs informed optimisation, specifically for obese patients. Another matched patient study containing 27 patient pairs was used to confirm protocol matching. Size-specific dose estimates (SSDEs) were calculated for patients in the second cohort. With the acquisition protocol for the Siemens scanner determined, clinicians visually graded the images to identify optimal reconstruction parameters. Results: In the first matched patient study, the mean percentage difference in CTDIvol for Siemens compared to GE was − 10.7% (range − 41.7 to 50.1%), and the mean percentage difference in noise measured in the patients’ liver was 7.6% (range − 31.0 to 76.8%). In the second matched patient study, the mean percentage difference in CTDIvol for Siemens compared to GE was − 20.5% (range − 43.1 to 1.9%), and the mean percentage difference in noise was 19.8% (range − 27.0 to 146.8%). For these patients, the mean SSDEs for patients scanned on the Siemens and GE scanners were 3.27 (range 2.83 to 4.22) mGy and 4.09 (range 2.81 to 4.82) mGy, respectively. The analysis of the visual grading study indicated no preference for any of the SAFIRE strengths. Conclusions: Given the different implementations of acquisition parameters and reconstruction algorithms between vendors, careful consideration is required to ensure optimisation and standardisation of protocols.