See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331523596

Brain CT with 64 and 16 slice CT scan comparison of image quality and radiation
dose with standard protocols

Conference Paper · February 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 1,498

4 authors:

Mohamed M Abuzaid Wiam Elshami

University of Sharjah University of Sharjah
129 PUBLICATIONS   499 CITATIONS    86 PUBLICATIONS   325 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Abdelmoneim Sulieman Constantin Kappas

Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University Medical School of Larissa
253 PUBLICATIONS   1,011 CITATIONS    109 PUBLICATIONS   1,450 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Developing and testing an electronic literacy resource for Arab patients before experiencing radiology procedures View project

Adjustable Gastric Banding for Morbid Obesity: Radiographic Assessment, Preoperative Findings and Complications View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohamed M Abuzaid on 05 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Brain CT with 64 and 16 slice CT scan comparison of image quality and radiation
dose with standard protocols
Mohamed. M. Abuzaid (1), , Wiam. Elshami (1) , Abdelmoneim Sulieman (2), Constantin Kappas (3)

(1) Department of Medical Diagnostic Imaging, College of Health Sciences, University of Sharjah, , Sharjah, UAE
(2) Radiology and Medical Imaging Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz
University, Alkharj, Saudi Arabia
(3) Medical Physics Department, Medical School and University Hospital of Larissa, University of Thessaly, Larissa,
Greece

E-mail: mabdelfatah@Sharjah.ac.ae]

Abstract
Introduction
The excellent diagnostic value of Computed Tomography (CT) images have led to rapid increase in the CT procedures resulting in a significant
increase in radiation exposure to the population. The purpose of this study was to compare radiation dose and image quality of 16- and 64-
MDCT scanner during brain procedures.
Material and Methods
CT scan parameters and patient data were collected for 40 patients underwent routine brain scan protocol. Average values of CTDIvol, DLP
and effective dose (ED) were calculated and compared for the two scanners. Three radiologist evaluate independently image quality using a 5-
point scale, as well as select a preferable image.
Results:
The DLP and effective dose values are higher for 64-slice CT (1160 mGy/cm and 2.55 mSv) versus 16-slice CT (670 mGy/cm and 1.47 mSv),
The p-value was less than 0.05, which is statically significant. In term of image quality 64CT scanners images scored higher than 16CT scanner
with average scores of 4.5 and 4.0, respectively. In preferred image selection, radiologists preferred the 64CT scanners images in 15 out of 18
image sets (83%), a significant (p < 0.01).

Conclusion:
The high number of detectors produce high image quality and increase the amount of radiation dose received by the patients. Optimizing of
scanning protocol lead to ensure that patient dose within the level of acceptance limits.

1
References
1. Simantirakis G, Hourdakis CJ, Economides S, Kaisas I, Kalathaki M, Koukorava C, et al. Diagnostic
reference levels and patient doses in computed tomography examinations in Greece. Radiat Prot
Dosimetry [Internet]. 2015 Feb 1 [cited 2017 Aug 25];163(3):319–24. Available from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24891405
2. Dougeni E, Faulkner K, Panayiotakis G. A review of patient dose and optimisation methods in adult and
paediatric CT scanning. Eur J Radiol [Internet]. 2012;81(4):e665–83. Available from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.05.025
3. Aw-Zoretic J, Seth D, Katzman G, Sammet S. Estimation of effective dose and lifetime attributable risk
from multiple head CT scans in ventriculoperitoneal shunted children. Eur J Radiol [Internet].
2014;83(10):1920–4. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.07.006
4. Bou Serhal C, Jacobs R, Gijbels F, Bosmans H, Hermans R, Quirynen M, et al. Absorbed doses from
spiral CT and conventional spiral tomography: a phantom vs. cadaver study. Clin Oral Implants Res.
2001;12(5):473–8.
5. Ct DF. CT Scanning: A Major Source of Radiation Exposure. 2002;23(5):402–10.
6. Karim MKA, Hashim S, Bradley DA, Bakar KA, Haron MR, Kayun Z. Radiation doses from computed
tomography practice in Johor Bahru, Malaysia. Radiat Phys Chem. 2016;121(July 2016):69–74.
7. Moore WH, Bonvento M, Olivieri-Fitt R. Comparison of MDCT radiation dose: a phantom study. AJR
Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(5):498–502.
8. Feng ST, Law MWM, Huang B, Ng S, Li ZP, Meng QF, et al. Radiation dose and cancer risk from
pediatric CT examinations on 64-slice CT: A phantom study. Eur J Radiol [Internet]. 2010;76(2):e19–23.
Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.03.005
9. Diekmann S, Siebert E, Juran R, Roll M, Deeg W, Bauknecht HC, et al. Dose exposure of patients
undergoing comprehensive stroke imaging by multidetector-row CT: Comparison of 320-detector row and
64-detector row CT scanners. Am J Neuroradiol. 2010;31(6):1003–9.
10. Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA. Multisection CT Protocols : Sex- and Age-specifi c Conversion Dose
from Dose-Length Product 1 Purpose : Methods : Results : Conclusion : 2010;257(1).
11. Tan JSP, Tan KL, Lee JCL, Wan CM, Leong JL, Chan LL. Comparison of eye lens dose on neuroimaging
protocols between 16- And 64-section multidetector CT: Achieving the lowest possible dose. Am J
Neuroradiol. 2009;30(2):373–7.
12. Choudhary AB, Motwani MB, Degwekar SS, Bhowate RR, Banode PJ, Yadav AO, et al. Radiation dose
reduction in computed tomography: techniques and future perspective. Eur J Radiol [Internet].
2009;47(4):461–8. Available from:
http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/abs/10.2217/iim.09.5%5Cnhttp://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/
S0901502715000181%5Cnhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.09.023%5Cnhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

2
 clinimag.2012.11.002%5Cnhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm
13. Lewis M, Nicholas Keat SE. Report 06013. 2006.
14. David Platten, Nicholas Keat Maria Lewis, Julia Barrett SE. Evaluation Report. Vol. 75. 2004.
15. Söderberg M, Gunnarsson M. Automatic exposure control in computed tomography – an evaluation of
systems from different manufacturers. Acta radiol [Internet]. 2010 Jul 1;51(6):625–34. Available from:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3109/02841851003698206
16. ICRP. ICRP, 2007. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP 37 (2-4). 2007.
17. ICRP. International Commission on Radiological Protection 2009 Annual Report. 2009.
18. Health Canada. Canadian Computed Tomography Survey - National Diagnostic Reference Levels -
Canada.ca [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2017 Aug 25]. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-
canada/services/publications/health-risks-safety/canadian-computed-tomography-survey-national-
diagnostic-reference-levels.html
19. (ARPANSA) ARP and NSA. ARPANSA - Current Australian National Diagnostic Reference Levels for
MDCT [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2017 Aug 25]. Available from:
http://www.arpansa.gov.au/services/ndrl/current.cfm
20. Japan Medical Imaging and Radiological System Industries Association NI of RS. Diagnostic Reference
Levels Based on Latest Surveys in Japan — Japan DRLs 2015 —. 2015.
21. American College of Radiology (ACR). PRACTICE GUIDELINE Reference Levels / 1 [Internet]. 2013
[cited 2017 Aug 25]. Available from:
https://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/PGTS/guidelines/Reference_Levels_Diagnostic_Xray.pdf?
la=en
22. Shrimpton, PC, Hillier MC MS and GS. Public Health England - Doses from Computed Tomography ( CT
) Examinations in the UK – 2011 Review [Internet]. 2014. 1-129 p. Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/349188/PHE_CRCE_013.p
df
23. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Scientific Committee 4-3 on Diagnostic
Reference Levels and Achievable Doses and RL in MIR for A in the US, Measurements. NC on RP and.
Reference levels and achievable doses in medical and dental imaging : recommendations for the United
States [Internet]. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2012 [cited 2017 Aug 25].
Available from: https://www.ncrppublications.org/Reports/172
24. Kanal KM, Butler PF, Sengupta D, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Coombs LP, Morin RL. U.S. Diagnostic
Reference Levels and Achievable Doses for 10 Adult CT Examinations. Radiology [Internet].
2017;284(1):120–33. Available from: http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2017161911
25. European Union. Diagnostic Reference Levels in Thirty-six European Countries. Part 2/2. Radiat Prot N°
180. 2014;1–73.
26. Foley SJ, Mcentee MF, Rainford LA. Establishment of CT diagnostic reference levels in Ireland. Br J
Radiol. 2012;85(1018):1390–7.

3
 4

View publication stats