Summary: Approximately 10 years after spiral CT revolutionized CT
imaging, a technical breakthrough occurred that has proven to be
as, or more, important. Multislice CT (MSCT) offers better
longitudinal and temporal resolution that benefits nearly all
imaging applications. The first MSCT systems were introduced in the
ear

Approximately 10 years after spiral CT revolutionized CT
imaging, a technical breakthrough occurred that has proven to be
as, or more, important. Multislice CT (MSCT) offers better
longitudinal and temporal resolution that benefits nearly all
imaging applications. The first MSCT systems were introduced in the
early 1990s and were composed of dual- or split-detector systems
permitting acquisition of two channels of X-ray data
simultaneously. MSCT scanners with four data channels were
introduced in 1998 and have proven to be a significant advancement
in CT performance, providing narrower slices, faster scans, and/or
greater longitudinal coverage. In 2001 to 2002, systems with 8 or
16 data channels have emerged and manufacturers are testing even
broader detector arrays as a future means of providing "snapshot"
CT imaging. Dissemination of this technology has been rapid and
widespread. However, the potential for increased radiation exposure
with this technology has dampened enthusiasm, particularly in the
pediatric population.
The width of the radiation profile with MSCT is increased
substantially, due in part to the shape of the beam. MSCT systems
use a cone beam, rather than a fan beam, geometry. Although the
radiation beam width is typically within 1 millimeter of the
nominal scan width for single-detector CT scanners, the width of
the radiation beam typically exceeds the total scan width in MSCT
scanners. The amount of beam width overage that occurs is dependent
upon the detector configuration used. In the earliest version of a
4-channel MSCT scanner (Lightspeed QX/i, Version 1.0, GE Medical
Systems, Milwaukee, WI), the radiation profile width was 150%
greater than the scan width (12.5 mm) for a 5-mm nominal scan width
(4 × 1.25 mm detector configuration). Conversely, for a 20mm
nominal scan width (4 × 5 mm detector configuration), the radiation
profile width was only 30% greater than the scan width (26 mm).
1
As a result, the maximum surface CT dose index (CTDI) values for
multislice body CT increased by 238% for the 4 × 1.25 mm detector
configuration and 76% for the 4 × 5 mm detector configuration, as
compared with single-detector CT. Thus, the dose efficiency of MSCT
is maximized when the full longitudinal extent of the detector is
used (4 × 5 mm detector configuration).
The difference between single-slice and MSCT for CT examination
of the adult abdomen and pelvis were well documented by McCollough
and Zink.
1
Examining the differences between their single-detector protocol
(7-mm slice thickness, pitch of 1) and their MSCT protocol (5-mm
slice thickness, beam pitch of 0.75), these authors found that the
scan time was reduced from 34 to 16 seconds for 30 cm of coverage
with a rotation time of 0.8 seconds. Moreover, although image noise
was equivalent between the two techniques, the tube current was
reduced from 310 mA to 190 mA with MSCT, resulting in a total mAs
of 10,540 for single-detector CT as compared with 3,040 for MSCT.
However, two factors counterbalanced this reduction in tube current
such that the radiation dose increased by approximately 50% at both
the center and the surface of a 32-cm CTDI phantom. Specifically,
the increased width of the radiation profile, and the 25% overlap
in the X-ray beam with spiral MSCT (beam pitch = 0.75) both
contributed to this apparent paradox. In spite of these
differences, the authors point out that the absolute dose from the
MSCT examination is well within the acceptable values for
comparable single-detector CT examinations.
In a later version (Lightspeed QX/i, Version 1.1, GE Medical
Systems), a technique was developed to reduce such dose
inefficiencies. A focal-spot tracking algorithm was designed to
compensate for unwanted motion in the X-ray tube that results from
both thermal and mechanical effects. By creating a feedback loop
from the detector to cams at the X-ray beam collimator, portions of
the X-ray beam that fell beyond the active detector cells owing to
beam motion were greatly reduced. As a result, the maximum surface
CTDI values increased by just 105% for the 4 × 1.25 mm detector
configuration and only 10% for the 4 × 5 mm detector configuration
as compared with single-slice CT. Although the maximum surface dose
is increased by 10% with MSCT, the effective dose (a measure
related to the total energy deposited in the patient) is nearly
equalized between the two techniques. This is because the overlap
between scans performed during separate breath-holds with
single-slice helical CT is eliminated with MSCT performed in a
single breathhold.
With single-slice helical CT, a well-known dose benefit may be
realized by increasing the beam pitch. Radiation dose may be cut in
half by doubling pitch from one-to-two pitch = 2.0, without
significant loss of diagnostic information. Similarly, with MSCT,
one may consider using a beam pitch of 1.5 for routine imaging as
the 25% overlap with beam pitch of 0.75 is replaced with a 50% gap
in the X-ray beam. However, the system software of most MSCT
scanners automatically adjusts the tube current in order to obtain
comparable levels of image noise, which largely offsets any
potential benefit to radiation dose, unless one manually overrides
this adjustment and accepts an increased level of image noise.
2
One of the primary benefits of MSCT is the ability to image with
thinner slices. But, as thinner sections are acquired, radiation
dose is necessarily increased to maintain photon flux, so long as
image noise is held constant. Although this is true for both
single-slice CT and MSCT, the use of narrow-beam collimation with
MSCT imparts a relative dose inefficiency owing to the increased
percentage of the X-ray beam that falls beyond the active detector
rows (penumbra). To compensate for this, one must lower the tube
current and accept an increased amount of image noise among the
thin sections, a practice that is usually acceptable, since thin
sections are typically used for high-contrast imaging applications
such as CT angiography. Review of thicker sections for routine
image viewing may be performed by generating thicker sections from
a thin-slice acquisition, or by postprocessing thin slices into
thicker reformations on an image review workstation. Either
technique will compensate, in part, for the increased noise
associated with acquisition of thinner slice data.
Manufacturers are developing new innovations for radiation dose
reduction. Beyond focal-spot tracking techniques intended to
minimize wasted radiation from the penumbra, manufacturers continue
to develop techniques that permit the radiation dose associated
with any given CT scan to be tailored to the patient's unique body
habitus. Taking advantage of differences in patient thickness
between the anteroposterior direction and the mediolateral
direction, some manufacturers have elected to modulate the X-ray
beam intensity as the beam rotates around the patient. With such an
approach, substantial dose reduction benefits may be realized.
Similarly, the beam may be modulated according to longitudinal
differences in patient thickness as the patient travels through the
X-ray gantry. When used together, transverse and longitudinal beam
modulation techniques work synergistically to reduce the radiation
dose.
With the widespread dissemination of MSCT scanners,
manufacturers have sought to extend the technology to higher
numbers of data channels that may be active at any given time,
increasing the number of slices that may be acquired
simultaneously. MSCT scanners that made use of a matrix detector
configuration where detector elements are all of equal size have
had a slight advantage in extending their scanner design to permit
acquisition of 8 slices owing to the configuration. Manufacturers
that used an adaptive array generally required redesign of the
detector array to permit acquisition of a larger number of slices.
However, matrix detectors tend to be less dose efficient than
adaptive arrays, owing to attenuation of the X-ray beam by the
numerous septae that divide the individual cells in the detector
array. Because of this and other geometric considerations, most
16-channel implementations have converged to use of an adaptive
detector array.
With an increase in the number of data slices acquired
simultaneously from 4 to 8 or 16, manufacturers realize a dose
efficiency benefit owing to a decrease in the amount of wasted
radiation that results from the penumbra, which extends beyond the
active detector rows. This is realized because of the greater
longitudinal coverage achieved with each rotation of the X-ray tube
permitting fewer instances in which this geometric inefficiency
occurs. Siemens Medical Systems (Iselin, NJ) reports an increase in
dose efficiency from 70% for 4 × 1 MSCT to more than 85% with 16 ×
1.5 MSCT.
Practically, several practice and protocol adjustments can
greatly offset the potential increase in radiation dose associated
with spiral MSCT.
3
First, one should take care to review all current protocols to be
sure that diagnostic needs are met without excess radiation.
7
Second, the slice thickness should be appropriate for the clinical
question. Thinner sections are accompanied by increased noise, and
there is a tendency to compensate for this with increased
radiation. In addition, the beam width (and detector configuration)
should be chosen to be as wide as possible because dose efficiency
decreases as beam collimation narrows. Although increasing pitch
will reduce dose with sin-gle-slice CT, the same is not necessarily
true for MSCT. Some MSCT manufacturers automatically increase tube
current to produce equal noise when pitch is increased.
2
Radiation dose will only be lowered if the technologist manually
overrides this feature. Of course, a similar dose reduction could
be achieved by holding pitch constant and reducing mAs. (Some
manufacturers have opted to normalize the tube cur-rent with
respect to pitch and refer to the normalized value as the
"effective" tube current.) Finally, technique charts should be used
in the pediatric population to insure that the chosen tube current
is appropriate for the patient's age and body habitus.
4-6