Computed Tomography Image Quality Evaluation of a New Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm in the Abdomen (Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction-V) a Comparison With Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction, Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction, and Filtered Back Projection Reconstructions

被引:51
作者
Goodenberger, Martin H. [1 ]
Wagner-Bartak, Nicolaus A. [1 ]
Gupta, Shiva [1 ]
Liu, Xinming [2 ]
Yap, Ramon Q. [1 ]
Sun, Jia [3 ]
Tamm, Eric P. [1 ]
Jensen, Corey T. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Diagnost Radiol, 1400 Pressler St,Unit 1473, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Phys, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[3] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Biostat, Houston, TX 77030 USA
关键词
iterative reconstruction; ASIR; MBIR; CT image quality; abdomen; ABDOMINAL CT; DOSE REDUCTION; STANDARD; PHANTOM; IMPACT; NOISE;
D O I
10.1097/RCT.0000000000000666
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Objective The purpose of this study was to compare abdominopelvic computed tomography images reconstructed with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V (ASIR-V) with model-based iterative reconstruction (Veo 3.0), ASIR, and filtered back projection (FBP). Methods and Materials Abdominopelvic computed tomography scans for 36 patients (26 males and 10 females) were reconstructed using FBP, ASIR (80%), Veo 3.0, and ASIR-V (30%, 60%, 90%). Mean SD patient age was 32 10 years with mean +/- SD body mass index of 26.9 +/- 4.4 kg/m(2). Images were reviewed by 2 independent readers in a blinded, randomized fashion. Hounsfield unit, noise, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) values were calculated for each reconstruction algorithm for further comparison. Phantom evaluation of low-contrast detectability (LCD) and high-contrast resolution was performed. Results Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V 30%, ASIR-V 60%, and ASIR 80% were generally superior qualitatively compared with ASIR-V 90%, Veo 3.0, and FBP (P < 0.05). Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V 90% showed superior LCD and had the highest CNR in the liver, aorta, and, pancreas, measuring 7.32 +/- 3.22, 11.60 +/- 4.25, and 4.60 +/- 2.31, respectively, compared with the next best series of ASIR-V 60% with respective CNR values of 5.54 +/- 2.39, 8.78 +/- 3.15, and 3.49 +/- 1.77 (P <0.0001). Veo 3.0 and ASIR 80% had the best and worst spatial resolution, respectively. Conclusions Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V 30% and ASIR-V 60% provided the best combination of qualitative and quantitative performance. Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction 80% was equivalent qualitatively, but demonstrated inferior spatial resolution and LCD.
引用
收藏
页码:184 / 190
页数:7
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]   Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction-V: Impact on Image Quality in Ultralow-Dose Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography [J].
Benz, Dominik C. ;
Grani, Christoph ;
Mikulicic, Fran ;
Vontobel, Jan ;
Fuchs, Tobias A. ;
Possner, Mathias ;
Clerc, Olivier F. ;
Stehli, Julia ;
Gaemperli, Oliver ;
Pazhenkottil, Aju P. ;
Buechel, Ronny R. ;
Kaufmann, Philipp A. .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2016, 40 (06) :958-963
[2]  
Boone JMSK, 2011, REPORT AM ASS PHYS M, DOI DOI 10.37206/143
[3]   Investigation of American Association of Physicists in Medicine Report 204 Size-specific Dose Estimates for Pediatric CT Implementation [J].
Brady, Samuel L. ;
Kaufman, Robert A. .
RADIOLOGY, 2012, 265 (03) :832-840
[4]   Filtered Back Projection, Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction, and a Model-based Iterative Reconstruction in Abdominal CT: An Experimental Clinical Study [J].
Deak, Zsuzsanna ;
Grimm, Jochen M. ;
Treitl, Marcus ;
Geyer, Lucas L. ;
Linsenmaier, Ulrich ;
Koerner, Markus ;
Reiser, Maximilian F. ;
Wirth, Stefan .
RADIOLOGY, 2013, 266 (01) :197-206
[5]   Methods for Clinical Evaluation of Noise Reduction Techniques in Abdominopelvic CT [J].
Ehman, Eric C. ;
Yu, Lifeng ;
Manduca, Armando ;
Hara, Amy K. ;
Shiung, Maria M. ;
Jondal, Dayna ;
Lake, David S. ;
Paden, Robert G. ;
Blezek, Daniel J. ;
Bruesewitz, Michael R. ;
McCollough, Cynthia H. ;
Hough, David M. ;
Fletcher, Joel G. .
RADIOGRAPHICS, 2014, 34 (04) :849-862
[6]  
Fan J, 2014, CISC VIS NETW IND GL
[7]   Dose reduction with iterative reconstruction in multi-detector CT: What is the impact on deformation of circular structures in phantom study? [J].
Greffier, J. ;
Macri, F. ;
Larbi, A. ;
Fernandez, A. ;
Pereira, F. ;
Mekkaoui, C. ;
Beregi, J. -P. .
DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL IMAGING, 2016, 97 (02) :187-196
[8]   Dose reduction with iterative reconstruction: Optimization of CT protocols in clinical practice [J].
Greffier, J. ;
Macri, F. ;
Larbi, A. ;
Fernandez, A. ;
Khasanova, E. ;
Pereira, F. ;
Mekkaoui, C. ;
Beregi, J. P. .
DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL IMAGING, 2015, 96 (05) :477-486
[9]   Evaluation of Abdominal Computed Tomography Image Quality Using a New Version of Vendor-Specific Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction [J].
Jensen, Corey T. ;
Telesmanich, Morgan E. ;
Wagner-Bartak, Nicolaus A. ;
Liu, Xinming ;
Rong, John ;
Szklaruk, Janio ;
Qayyum, Aliya ;
Wei, Wei ;
Chandler, Adam G. ;
Tamm, Eric P. .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2017, 41 (01) :67-74
[10]   Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction Technique for Ultralow-Dose Chest CT Comparison of Pulmonary Nodule Detectability With the Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction Technique [J].
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