Accurate localization of incidental findings on the computed
tomography attenuation correction image: the influence
of tube current variation

Thompson, JD; Hogg, P; Higham, S; Manning, D

Abstract

This observer performance study assessed lesion
detection in the computed tomography attenuation
correction image, as would be produced for myocardial
perfusion imaging over a tube current (mA) range. A static
anthropomorphic chest phantom containing simulated
pulmonary lesions was scanned using the four available
mA values (1, 1.5, 2 and 2.5) on a GE Infinia Hawkeye 4.
All other computed tomography acquisition parameters
remained constant throughout. Twenty-seven cases
showing zero to four lesions were produced for a
free-response receiver-operating characteristic method.
Image observations were completed using our novel
web-based ROCView software under controlled conditions.
The Jackknife alternative free-response receiver-operating
characteristic (JAFROC) figure of merit was used for
significance testing, wherein a difference in lesion
detection performance was considered significant
at P values less than 0.05. Twenty readers with varying
computed tomography experience (0–24 years) evaluated
108 images using an ordinal scale to score confidence.
The JAFROC analysis showed that there was no
statistically significant difference in performance between
mA values (P =0.439) for this sample of observers.
In conclusion, no significant difference in lesion detection
performance was seen between the mA values. This
suggests that there is no value in using anything other
than the lowest mA value for the investigation of incidental
extracardiac findings.

Citation

of tube current variation. Nuclear Medicine Communications, 34(2), 180-184. https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0b013e32835c0984

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Publication Date: Feb 1, 2013
• Deposit Date: Oct 8, 2013
• Publicly Available Date: Apr 28, 2017
• Journal: Nuclear Medicine Communications
• Print ISSN: 0143-3636
• Publisher: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 34
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 180-184
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0b013e32835c0984
• Publisher URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0b013e32835c0984
• Related Public URLs: http://journals.lww.com/nuclearmedicinecomm/pages/default.aspx