Choosing the best reconstruction technique in abdominal computed tomography: A systematic approach

被引:5
作者
机构
[1] Intervention Centre, Oslo University Hospital, Pb 4950 Nydalen, Oslo
[2] Department of Physics, University in Oslo
[3] Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet
[4] Department of Medicine, University in Oslo, Oslo
来源
Martinsen, Anne Catrine Trægde | 1600年 / Lippincott Williams and Wilkins卷 / 38期
关键词
CT; Image quality; Iterative reconstruction; Lesion detectability; Liver; Optimization; Reconstruction; ROC; Toshiba;
D O I
10.1097/RCT.0000000000000139
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: There is uncertainty regarding the effect of iterative reconstruction (IR) techniques and other reconstruction algorithms on image quality. The aim of this study was to optimize image quality in relation to radiation dose in computed tomography (CT) liver examinations by comparing images reconstructed with different abdominal filters with and without IR.; Methods: An anthropomorphic phantom was scanned on a Toshiba Aquilion ONE CT scanner. Images at 2 different dose levels were reconstructed with 12 different body reconstruction filters, all with both filtered back-projection and Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction 3 dimensional. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed. The 2 reconstruction combinations with the highest scores from the phantom study were evaluated in a second comparison of clinical images. Six liver examinations were reconstructed with both filters and evaluated using visual grading analysis.; Results: Two combinations of reconstruction filters and IR were the only 2 options among the 8 best images at both dose levels (area under the curve, 0.96 and 0.94 for 15 mGy as well as 0.86 and 0.84 for 10 mGy). In the patient study, one of these filters in combination with IR scored slightly higher than the other in combination with IR (mean score, 2.60 and 2.57, respectively; P = 0.56). Iterative reconstruction did not significantly increase lesion detectability for any of the filters.; Conclusions: This study indicates that the preferred choice for reconstruction of CT liver examinations performed with the Toshiba Aquilion ONE should be the FC18 filter with IR, although the IR technique did not significantly improve lesion detectability and did not compensate for the dose reduction in this study. © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
引用
收藏
页码:853 / 858
页数:5
相关论文
共 14 条
[1]  
UNSCEAR 2008 Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes., (2010)
[2]  
Martinsen A.C., Saether H.K., Hol P.K., Et al., Iterative reconstruction reduces abdominal CT dose, Eur J Radiol., 81, pp. 1483-1487, (2012)
[3]  
Yasaka K., Katsura M., Akahane M., Et al., Model-based iterative reconstruction for reduction of radiation dose in abdominopelvic CT: Comparison to adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, SpringerPlus., 2, (2013)
[4]  
Varutvardhanabhuti V., Sumaira I., Gutteridge C., Et al., Comparison of image quality between filtered back-projection and the adaptive statistical and novel model-based iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominal CT for renal calculi, Insights Imaging., 4, pp. 661-669, (2013)
[5]  
Desai G.S., Thabet A., Elias A.Y.A., Et al., Comparative assessment of three image reconstruction techniques for image quality and radiation dose in patients undergoing abdominopelvic multidetector CT examinations, Br J Radiol., 86, (2013)
[6]  
Kalra M.K., Woisetschlager M., Dahlstrom N., Et al., Radiation dose reduction with sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction technique for abdominal computed tomography, J Comput Assist Tomogr., 36, pp. 339-346, (2012)
[7]  
Laqmani A., Buhk J.H., Henes F.O., Et al., Impact of a 4th generation iterative reconstruction technique on image quality in low-dose computed tomography of the chest in immunocompromised patients, Fortschr Röntgenstr., 185, pp. 749-757, (2013)
[8]  
Ploussi A., Alexopoulou E., Economopoulos N., Et al., Patient radiation exposure and image quality evaluation with the use of IDOSE4 iterative reconstruction algorithm in chest-abdomen-pelvis CTexaminations, Radiat Prot Dosimetry., 158, pp. 399-405, (2014)
[9]  
Joemai R., Veldkamp W.J.H., Kroft L.J.M., Et al., Adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D versus filtered back projection in CT: Evaluation of image quality, AJR Am J Roentgenol., 201, pp. 1291-1297, (2013)
[10]  
Gervaise A., Osemont B., Louis M., Et al., Standard dose versus low-dose abdominal and pelvic CT: Comparison between filtered back projection versus adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D, Diagn Interv Imaging., 95, pp. 47-53, (2014)