Accuracy of Ultralow-Dose Photon-counting CT in the Detection of Lung Changes after Lung Transplant

Background Data on the diagnostic accuracy of ultralow-dose (ULD) CT protocols for periodic surveillance in recipients of lung transplant are lacking. Purpose To assess the potential for radiation dose reduction using ULD photon-counting CT (PCT) to detect lung abnormalities in recipients of lung transplant during repeat CT follow-up. Materials and Methods Consecutive adult recipients of lung transplant undergoing same-day standard-of-care low-dose (LD) and ULD PCT from March 2023 to May 2023 were prospectively included. The ULD protocols were performed with two target effective doses comprising 20% (hereafter, ULD1) and 10% (hereafter, ULD2) of the standard LD protocol. The 1-mm reconstructions were reviewed by three readers. Subjective image quality, the visibility of certain anatomic structures (using a five-point Likert scale), and the presence of lung abnormalities were independently assessed. The χ<sup>2</sup> or <i>t</i> tests were used to evaluate differences between the ULD1 and ULD2 protocols. Results A total of 82 participants (median age, 64 years [IQR, 54-69 years]; 47 male) were included (41 participants for each ULD protocol). The mean effective doses per protocol were 1.41 mSv ± 0.44 (SD) for LD, 0.26 mSv ± 0.08 for ULD1, and 0.17 mSv ± 0.04 for ULD2. According to three readers, the subjective image quality of the ULD images was deemed diagnostic (Likert score ≥3) in 39-40 (ULD1) and 40-41 (ULD2) participants, and anatomic structures could be adequately visualized (Likert score ≥3) in 33-41 (ULD1) and 34-41 (ULD2) participants. The detection accuracy for individual lung anomalies exceeded 70% for both ULD protocols, except for readers 1 and 3 detecting proximal bronchiectasis and reader 3 detecting bronchial wall thickening and air trapping. No evidence of a statistically significant difference in noise (<i>P</i> = .96), signal-to-noise ratio (<i>P</i> = .77), or reader accuracy (all <i>P</i> ≥ .05) was noted between the ULD protocols. Conclusion ULD PCT was feasible for detecting lung abnormalities following lung transplant, with a tenfold radiation dose reduction. © RSNA, 2024 <i>Supplemental material is available for this article</i>. See also the editorial by Ciet in this issue.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Radiology
Published
2024-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.240271
Citations
11
Primary Topic
Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.03
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Accuracy of Ultralow-Dose Photon-counting CT in the Detection of Lung Changes after Lung Transplant

E. Hielle-Wittmann, Helmut Prosch, Lucian Beer, Péter Jaksch et al.
11 citations
Radiology
Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging
2.03
article

Accuracy of Ultralow-Dose Photon-counting CT in the Detection of Lung Changes after Lung Transplant

E. Hielle-Wittmann, Helmut Prosch, Lucian Beer, Péter Jaksch, Marlene Stuempflen, Konrad Höetzenecker, Ruxandra‐Iulia Milos, G. Muraközy, Daria Kifjak, Michael Weber, Dietmar Tamandl, Andreas Strassl, Aida Korajac, Lisa Lechner, Zsófia Kovács, Martin L. Watzenböck
article en
11 citations

Abstract

Background Data on the diagnostic accuracy of ultralow-dose (ULD) CT protocols for periodic surveillance in recipients of lung transplant are lacking. Purpose To assess the potential for radiation dose reduction using ULD photon-counting CT (PCT) to detect lung abnormalities in recipients of lung transplant during repeat CT follow-up. Materials and Methods Consecutive adult recipients of lung transplant undergoing same-day standard-of-care low-dose (LD) and ULD PCT from March 2023 to May 2023 were prospectively included. The ULD protocols were performed with two target effective doses comprising 20% (hereafter, ULD1) and 10% (hereafter, ULD2) of the standard LD protocol. The 1-mm reconstructions were reviewed by three readers. Subjective image quality, the visibility of certain anatomic structures (using a five-point Likert scale), and the presence of lung abnormalities were independently assessed. The χ<sup>2</sup> or <i>t</i> tests were used to evaluate differences between the ULD1 and ULD2 protocols. Results A total of 82 participants (median age, 64 years [IQR, 54-69 years]; 47 male) were included (41 participants for each ULD protocol). The mean effective doses per protocol were 1.41 mSv ± 0.44 (SD) for LD, 0.26 mSv ± 0.08 for ULD1, and 0.17 mSv ± 0.04 for ULD2. According to three readers, the subjective image quality of the ULD images was deemed diagnostic (Likert score ≥3) in 39-40 (ULD1) and 40-41 (ULD2) participants, and anatomic structures could be adequately visualized (Likert score ≥3) in 33-41 (ULD1) and 34-41 (ULD2) participants. The detection accuracy for individual lung anomalies exceeded 70% for both ULD protocols, except for readers 1 and 3 detecting proximal bronchiectasis and reader 3 detecting bronchial wall thickening and air trapping. No evidence of a statistically significant difference in noise (<i>P</i> = .96), signal-to-noise ratio (<i>P</i> = .77), or reader accuracy (all <i>P</i> ≥ .05) was noted between the ULD protocols. Conclusion ULD PCT was feasible for detecting lung abnormalities following lung transplant, with a tenfold radiation dose reduction. © RSNA, 2024 <i>Supplemental material is available for this article</i>. See also the editorial by Ciet in this issue.

RadiologyVol. 312(3)
Medical University of Vienna (AT)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging
2.03
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.