Ultra Low Dose CT Pulmonary Angiography with Iterative Reconstruction

被引:45
作者
Sauter, Andreas [1 ]
Koehler, Thomas [2 ]
Fingerle, Alexander A. [1 ]
Brendel, Bernhard [2 ]
Richter, Vivien [3 ]
Rasper, Michael [1 ]
Rummeny, Ernst J. [1 ]
Noel, Peter B. [1 ,4 ,5 ]
Muenzel, Daniela [1 ]
机构
[1] Tech Univ Munich, Dept Diagnost & Intervent Radiol, Munich, Germany
[2] Philips GmbH, Innovat Technol, Res Labs, Hamburg, Germany
[3] Univ Klinikum Tubingen, Dept Diagnost & Intervent Radiol, Tubingen, Germany
[4] Tech Univ Munich, Lehrstuhl Biomed Phys, Dept Phys, Garching, Germany
[5] Tech Univ Munich, Inst Med Tech, Garching, Germany
来源
PLOS ONE | 2016年 / 11卷 / 09期
关键词
LOW-TUBE-VOLTAGE; IMAGE QUALITY; COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; ABDOMINAL CT; RADIATION; REDUCTION; EMBOLISM; ALGORITHM; CHEST; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0162716
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Objective Evaluation of a new iterative reconstruction algorithm (IMR) for detection/rule-out of pulmonary embolism (PE) in ultra-low dose computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Methods Lower dose CT data sets were simulated based on CTPA examinations of 16 patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) with dose levels (DL) of 50%, 25%, 12.5%, 6.3% or 3.1% of the original tube current setting. Original CT data sets and simulated low-dose data sets were reconstructed with three reconstruction algorithms: the standard reconstruction algorithm "filtered back projection" (FBP), the first generation iterative reconstruction algorithm iDose and the next generation iterative reconstruction algorithm "Iterative Model Reconstruction" (IMR). In total, 288 CTPA data sets (16 patients, 6 tube current levels, 3 different algorithms) were evaluated by two blinded radiologists regarding image quality, diagnostic confidence, detectability of PE and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Results iDose and IMR showed better detectability of PE than FBP. With IMR, sensitivity for detection of PE was 100% down to a dose level of 12.5%. iDose and IMR showed superiority to FBP regarding all characteristics of subjective (diagnostic confidence in detection of PE, image quality, image noise, artefacts) and objective image quality. The minimum DL providing acceptable diagnostic performance was 12.5% (= 0.45 mSv) for IMR, 25% (= 0.89 mSv) for iDose and 100% (= 3.57 mSv) for FBP. CNR was significantly (p < 0.001) improved by IMR compared to FBP and iDose at all dose levels. Conclusion By using IMR for detection of PE, dose reduction for CTPA of up to 75% is possible while maintaining full diagnostic confidence. This would result in a mean effective dose of approximately 0.9 mSv for CTPA.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The role of pure iterative reconstruction in conventional dose CT enterography
    Murphy, Kevin P.
    Crush, L.
    McLaughlin, P. D.
    O'Sullivan, Hilary S.
    Twomey, Maria
    Lynch, Sylvia
    Bye, J.
    McSweeney, Sean E.
    O'Connor, Owen J.
    Shanahan, F.
    Maher, Michael M.
    ABDOMINAL IMAGING, 2015, 40 (02): : 251 - 257
  • [42] Dose reduction with iterative reconstruction for coronary CT angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Den Harder, Annemarie M.
    Willemink, Martin J.
    De Ruiter, Quirina M. B.
    De Jong, Pim A.
    Schilham, Arnold M. R.
    Krestin, Gabriel P.
    Leiner, Tim
    Budde, Ricardo P. J.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2016, 89 (1058)
  • [43] Coronary CT angiography: Comparison of a novel iterative reconstruction with filtered back projection for reconstruction of low-dose CT-Initial experience
    Takx, Richard A. P.
    Schoepf, U. Joseph
    Moscariello, Antonio
    Das, Marco
    Rowe, Garrett
    Schoenberg, Stefan O.
    Fink, Christian
    Henzler, Thomas
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2013, 82 (02) : 275 - 280
  • [44] Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction Technique for Ultralow-Dose Chest CT Comparison of Pulmonary Nodule Detectability With the Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction Technique
    Katsura, Masaki
    Matsuda, Izuru
    Akahane, Masaaki
    Yasaka, Koichiro
    Hanaoka, Shohei
    Akai, Hiroyuki
    Sato, Jiro
    Kunimatsu, Akira
    Ohtomo, Kuni
    INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2013, 48 (04) : 206 - 212
  • [45] Ultra-Low-Dose CT of the Thorax Using Iterative Reconstruction: Evaluation of Image Quality and Radiation Dose Reduction
    Kim, Yookyung
    Kim, Yoon Kyung
    Lee, Bo Eun
    Lee, Seok Jeong
    Ryu, Yon Ju
    Lee, Jin Hwa
    Chang, Jung Hyun
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2015, 204 (06) : 1197 - 1202
  • [46] Lung nodules are reliably detectable on ultra-low-dose CT utilising model-based iterative reconstruction with radiation equivalent to plain radiography
    Miller, A. R.
    Jackson, D.
    Hui, C.
    Deshpande, S.
    Kuo, E.
    Hamilton, G. S.
    Lau, K. K.
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2019, 74 (05) : 409.e17 - 409.e22
  • [47] Iterative Reconstruction for Ultra-Low-Dose Laxative-Free CT Colonography
    Synho Do
    Naeppi, Janne J.
    Yoshida, Hiroyuki
    ABDOMINAL IMAGING: COMPUTATION AND CLINICAL APPLICATIONS, 2013, 8198 : 99 - 106
  • [48] Low-Dose Dual-Source CT Angiography With Iterative Reconstruction for Coronary Artery Stent Evaluation
    Eisentopf, Jasmin
    Achenbach, Stephan
    Ulzheimer, Stefan
    Layritz, Christian
    Wuest, Wolfgang
    May, Matthias
    Lell, Michael
    Ropers, Dieter
    Klinghammer, Lutz
    Daniel, Werner G.
    Pflederer, Tobias
    JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING, 2013, 6 (04) : 458 - 465
  • [49] Feasibility of ultra-low radiation dose reduction for renal stone CT using model-based iterative reconstruction: prospective pilot study
    Kriegshauser, J. Scott
    Naidu, Sailen G.
    Paden, Robert G.
    He, Miao
    Wu, Qing
    Hara, Amy K.
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2015, 39 (01) : 99 - 103
  • [50] Abdominal CT: Comparison of Low-Dose CT With Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction and Routine-Dose CT With Filtered Back Projection in 53 Patients
    Sagara, Yoshiko
    Hara, Amy K.
    Pavlicek, William
    Silva, Alvin C.
    Paden, Robert G.
    Wu, Qing
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2010, 195 (03) : 713 - 719