A comparison of image quality of cerium oxide nanoparticles and iodine contrast agents in computed tomography scan
DOI:
10.29303/jpm.v18i6.6004Published:
2023-11-30Downloads
Abstract
Computed tomography (CT) scan, with iodine-based contrast, produces good image quality by improving the visualisation of relatively low-contrast internal body structures. However, the impact of using iodinated difference should be considered in patients susceptible to contrast allergy and renal impairment. Therefore, alternative contrast materials, such as cerium oxide nanoparticles (CeO2 NPs), must be used, with biocompatible properties and strong X-ray attenuation capabilities. This study compared the CT scan image quality of CeO2 NPs and iodinated contrast agents. This experimental study started by preparing a suspension of CeO2 NPs and iodine in aquabidest at a concentration of 500 ppm. The suspension was scanned using a CT scan with a helical scanning method. The exposure coefficient parameters were set for the tube voltage of 80 kV, Field of View of 28 cm, slice thickness of 5 mm, and tube current time of 150 mAs, 200 mAs, and 250 mAs. Then, CT images in DICOM data format were processed using MicroDICOM Viewer software. The quality of the CT scan images was analysed based on the CT number value, noise level, and contrast resolution. The images of CeO2 nanoparticles have higher CT values, lower noise levels, and better contrast resolution than those of iodine contrast agents. The results show that the CT image results of CeO2 NPs have better quality than those of iodine-containing contrast agents.
Keywords:
Nanoparticle CeO2, Iodine Contrast Agent, Image QualityReferences
Seeram, E. (2010). Computed tomography: physical principles and recent technical advances. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, 41(2), 87-109.
Chung, J. B., Chong, J. U., Choi, J. Y., & Okazaki, K. (2020). Future Perspective. Diseases of the Gallbladder, 307-315.
Kiani, M., & Chaparian, A. (2023). Evaluation of image quality, organ doses, effective dose, and cancer risk from pediatric brain CT scans. European Journal of Radiology, 158, 110657.
McCann, C., & Alasti, H. (2004). Comparative evaluation of image quality from 3 computed tomography (CT) simulation scanners. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 5(4).
Bernstein, A. L., Dhanantwari, A., Jurcova, M., Cheheltani, R., Naha, P. C., Ivanc, T., ... & Cormode, D. P. (2016). Improved sensitivity of computed tomography towards iodine and gold nanoparticle contrast agents via iterative reconstruction methods. Scientific reports, 6(1), 26177.
Jiang, Z., Zhang, M., Li, P., Wang, Y., & Fu, Q. (2023). Nanomaterial-based CT contrast agents and their applications in image-guided therapy. Theranostics, 13(2), 483.
Kim, J., Chhour, P., Hsu, J., Litt, H. I., Ferrari, V. A., Popovtzer, R., & Cormode, D. P. (2017). Use of nanoparticle contrast agents for cell tracking with computed tomography. Bioconjugate chemistry, 28(6), 1581-1597.
Naha, P. C., Hsu, J. C., Kim, J., Shah, S., Bouché, M., Si-Mohamed, S., ... & Cormode, D. P. (2020). Dextran-coated cerium oxide nanoparticles: a computed tomography contrast agent for imaging the gastrointestinal tract and inflammatory bowel disease. ACS nano, 14(8), 10187-10197. [9] Y. Zhou, Y. Zhu, and J. Li, “Advantages of CT nano-contrast agent in tumor diagnosis A retrospective study,” Med. (United States), vol. 100, no. 37, 2021, doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000027044.
Verdun, F. R., Racine, D., Ott, J. G., Tapiovaara, M. J., Toroi, P., Bochud, F. O., ... & Edyvean, S. (2015). Image quality in CT: From physical measurements to model observers. Physica Medica, 31(8), 823-843.
Noferini, L., Taddeucci, A., Bartolini, M., Bruschi, A., & Menchi, I. (2016). CT image quality assessment by a Channelized Hotelling Observer (CHO): Application to protocol optimization. Physica Medica, 32(12), 1717-1723.
Raman, S. P., Mahesh, M., Blasko, R. V., & Fishman, E. K. (2013). CT scan parameters and radiation dose: practical advice for radiologists. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 10(11), 840-846.
Pace, E., & Borg, M. (2018). Optimisation of a paediatric CT brain protocol: a figure-of-merit approach. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 182(3), 394-404.
Pansambal, S., Oza, R., Borgave, S., Chauhan, A., Bardapurkar, P., Vyas, S., & Ghotekar, S. (2023). Bioengineered cerium oxide (CeO2) nanoparticles and their diverse applications: a review. Applied Nanoscience, 13(9), 6067-6092.
Putri, G. E., Rilda, Y., Syukri, S., Labanni, A., & Arief, S. (2021). Highly antimicrobial activity of cerium oxide nanoparticles synthesized using Moringa oleifera leaf extract by a rapid green precipitation method. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 15, 2355-2364.
Tamizhdurai, P., Sakthinathan, S., Chen, S. M., Shanthi, K., Sivasanker, S., & Sangeetha, P. (2017). Environmentally friendly synthesis of CeO2 nanoparticles for the catalytic oxidation of benzyl alcohol to benzaldehyde and selective detection of nitrite. Scientific reports, 7(1), 46372.
Mishra, S. R., & Ahmaruzzaman, M. (2021). Cerium oxide and its nanocomposites: Structure, synthesis, and wastewater treatment applications. Materials Today Communications, 28, 102562.
Nurhasanah, I., Astuti, Y., & Triadiyaksa, P. (2023). Precipitation Synthesis of CeO2 Nanopowder Pigment. Jurnal Rekayasa Kimia & Lingkungan, 18(1), 45-52.
Harun, A. Z., Ab Rashid, R., Ab Razak, K., Geso, M., & Rahman, W. N. W. A. (2019). Evaluation of contrast-noise ratio (CNR) in contrast enhanced CT images using different sizes of gold nanoparticles. Materials today: proceedings, 16, 1757-1765.
Aslan, N., Ceylan, B., Koç, M. M., & Findik, F. (2020). Metallic nanoparticles as X-Ray computed tomography (CT) contrast agents: A review. Journal of Molecular Structure, 1219, 128599.
Razi, T., Niknami, M., & Ghazani, F. A. (2014). Relationship between Hounsfield unit in CT scan and gray scale in CBCT. Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects, 8(2), 107.
Bernstein, A. L., Dhanantwari, A., Jurcova, M., Cheheltani, R., Naha, P. C., Ivanc, T., ... & Cormode, D. P. (2016). Improved sensitivity of computed tomography towards iodine and gold nanoparticle contrast agents via iterative reconstruction methods. Scientific reports, 6(1), 26177.
Tonnessen, B. H., & Pounds, L. (2011). Radiation physics. Journal of vascular surgery, 53(1), 6S-8S.
Gulliksrud, K., Stokke, C., & Martinsen, A. C. T. (2014). How to measure CT image quality: variations in CT-numbers, uniformity and low contrast resolution for a CT quality assurance phantom. Physica Medica, 30(4), 521-526..
Alsleem, H. A., & Almohiy, H. M. (2020). The Feasibility of Contrast-to-Noise Ratio on Measurements to Evaluate CT Image Quality in Terms of Low-Contrast Detailed Detectability. Medical Sciences, 8(3), 26.
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Faiz Nasrullah, Iis Nurhasanah, Pandji Triadyaksa, Dito Andi Rukmono
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The following terms apply to authors who publish in this journal:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal first publication rights, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License (CC-BY License) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and first publication in this journal.
2. Authors may enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., posting it to an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), acknowledging its initial publication in this journal.
3. Before and during the submission process, authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website), as this can lead to productive exchanges as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Downloads
How to Cite
