What is the preferred strength setting of the sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction algorithm in abdominal CT imaging?

被引：29

作者：

Hardie A.D. ^{[1
,2
]}

Nelson R.M. ^{[1
]}

Egbert R. ^{[1
]}

Rieter W.J. ^{[1
]}

Tipnis S.V. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, 169 Ashley Avenue, Charleston, 29425, SC

[2] Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, 25 Courtenay Dr. MSC 226, Charleston, 29401, SC

来源：

Radiological Physics and Technology | 2015年 / 8卷 / 1期

关键词：

Abdominal; CT; Iterative reconstruction; Noise;

D O I：

10.1007/s12194-014-0288-8

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Our primary objective in this study was to determine the preferred strength setting for the sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction algorithm (SAFIRE) in abdominal computed tomography (CT) imaging. Sixteen consecutive clinical CT scans of the abdomen were reconstructed by use of traditional filtered back projection (FBP) and 5 SAFIRE strengths: S1–S5. Six readers of differing experience were asked to rank the images on preference for overall diagnostic quality. The contrast-to-noise ratio was not significantly different between SAFIRE S1 and FBP, but increased with increasing SAFIRE strength. For pooled data, S2 and S3 were preferred equally but both were preferred over all other reconstructions. S5 was the least preferred, with FBP the next least preferred. This represents a marked disparity between the image quality based on quantitative parameters and qualitative preference. Care should be taken to factor in qualitative in addition to quantitative aspects of image quality when one is optimizing iterative reconstruction images. © 2014, Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics.

引用

页码：60 / 63

页数：3

共 12 条

[1]

Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT). ICRP Publication 102, Ann ICRP, 37, 1, pp. 1-79, (2007)

[2]

Kalender W.A., X-ray computed tomography, Phys Med Biol, 51, 13, pp. R29-R43, (2006)

[3]

Defrise M., Gullberg G.T., Image reconstruction, Phys Med Biol, 51, 13, pp. R139-R154, (2006)

[4]

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)

[5]

Sarabjeet S., Mannudeep K., Jiang H., Et al., Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques, Radiology, 257, pp. 373-383, (2010)

[6]

Deak Z., Grimm J.M., Treitl M., Filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and a model-based iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT: an Experimental clinical study, Radiology, 266, pp. 197-206, (2013)

[7]

Wen J.E., Fu H.Y., Bo L., Et al., Can sinogram-affirmed iterative (SAFIRE) reconstruction improve imaging quality on low-dose lung ct screening compared with traditional filtered back projection (FBP) reconstruction?, J Comput Assist Tomogr, 37, pp. 301-305, (2013)

[8]

Wang R., Schoepf U.J., Wu R., Nance J.W., Lv B., Yang H., Li F., Lu D., Zhang Z., Diagnostic accuracy of coronary CT angiography: comparison of filtered back projection and iterative reconstruction with different strengths, J Comput Assist Tomogr, 38, 2, pp. 179-184, (2014)

[9]

Wuest W., May M.S., Scharf M., Layritz C., Eisentopf J., Ropers D., Pflederer T., Uder M., Achenbach S., Lell M.M., Stent evaluation in low-dose coronary CT angiography: effect of different iterative reconstruction settings, J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr, 7, 5, pp. 319-325, (2013)

[10]

Hwang H.J., Seo J.B., Lee H.J., Lee S.M., Kim E.Y., Oh S.Y., Kim J.E., Low-dose chest computed tomography with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction, iterative reconstruction in image space, and filtered back projection: studies on image quality, J Comput Assist Tomogr, 37, 4, pp. 610-617, (2013)

← 1 2 →