To estimate potential dose reduction in abdominal CT by visually comparing images reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and strengths of 3 and 5 of a specific MBIR.
A dual-source scanner was used to obtain three data sets each for 50 recruited patients with 30, 70 and 100% tube loads (mean CTDIvol 1.9, 3.4 and 6.2 mGy). Six image criteria were assessed independently by five radiologists. Potential dose reduction was estimated with Visual Grading Regression (VGR).
Comparing 30 and 70% tube load, improved image quality was observed as a significant strong effect of log tube load and reconstruction method with potential dose reduction relative to FBP of 22–47% for MBIR strength 3 (p < 0.001). For MBIR strength 5 no dose reduction was possible for image criteria 1 (liver parenchyma), but dose reduction between 34 and 74% was achieved for other criteria. Interobserver reliability showed agreement of 71–76% (κw 0.201–0.286) and intra-observer reliability of 82–96% (κw 0.525–0.783).
MBIR showed improved image quality compared to FBP with positive correlation between MBIR strength and increasing potential dose reduction for all but one image criterion.
• MBIR’s main advantage is its de-noising properties, which facilitates dose reduction.
• MBIR allows for potential dose reduction in relation to FBP.
• Visual Grading Regression (VGR) produces direct numerical estimates of potential dose reduction.
• MBIR strengths 3 and 5 dose reductions were 22–34 and 34–74%.
• MBIR strength 5 demonstrates inferior performance for liver parenchyma.
Mahesh M (2009) MDCT physics the basics technology, image quality and radiation dose. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia
Moores M (2017) A review of the fundamental principles of radiation protection when applied to the patient in diagnostic radiology. Radiat Prot Dosim 175:1–9
Sun Z, Ng KA, Sarji SA (2010) Is utilisation of computed tomography justified in clinical practice? Part IV: applications of paediatric computed tomography. Singapore Med J 51:457–463 PubMed
Report UNSCEAR (2008) Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of ionizing radiation. Volume 1: Sources. Report to the general assembly Scientific annexes A & B
Le Coultre R, Bize J, Champendal M et al (2016) Exposure of the Swiss population by radiodiagnostics: 2013 review. Radiat Prot Dosim 169:221–224 CrossRef
European Commission (2014) Radiation protection No. 180: Medical radiation exposure of the European Population Part 1/2. Luxembourg, 2014 Available via https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/RP180.pdf. Accessed 30th July 2017
Smith-Bindeman R, Lipson J, Markus R et al (2009) Radiation dose associated with common Computed Tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk for cancer. Arch Intern Med 169:2078–2086 CrossRef
Liu L (2014) Model based Iterative Reconstruction: a promising algorithm for today's Computed Tomography Imaging. J Med Radiat Sci 45:131–136 CrossRef
Beister M, Kolditz D, Kalender WA (2012) Iterative reconstruction methods in X-ray CT. Phys Medica 28:94–108 CrossRef
Ott JG, Ba A, Racine D et al (2016) Patient exposure optimisation through task-based assessment of a new model-based iterative reconstruction technique. Radiat Prot Dosim 169:68–72 CrossRef
Report EUR 16262 EN (1996) European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Available via http://www.drs.dk/guidelines/ct/quality/htmlindex.htm. Accessed 15th Oct 2013
Smedby Ö, Fredrikson M, De Geer J, Borgen L, Sandborg M (2013) Quantifying the potential for dose reduction with visual grading regression. Br J Radiol 86:1–6 CrossRef
Abraira V, Pérez de Vargas A (1999) Generalization of the Kappa coefficient for ordinal categorical data, multiple observers and incomplete designs. Qüestiió 23:561–571
Saffari SE, Löve Á, Fredrikson M, Smedby Ö (2015) Regression models for analyzing radiological visual grading studies – an empirical comparison. BMC Med Imaging 15:1–10 CrossRef
Gordic S, Desbiolles L, Stolzmann P et al (2014) Advanced modelled iterative reconstruction for abdominal CT: qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Clin Radiol 69:497–504 CrossRef
Larsson J, Båth M, Ledenius K, Caisander H, Thilander-Klang A (2016) Assessment of clinical image quality in paediatric abdominal CT examinations: dependency on the level of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR) and the type of convolution kernel. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 169:123–129 CrossRefPubMed
Euler A, Stieltjes B, Szucs-Farkas Z et al. (2017) Impact of model-based iterative reconstruction on low-contrast lesion detection and image quality in abdominal CT: a 12-reader-based comparative phantom study with filtered back projection at different tube voltages. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4825-9
Solomon J, Marin D, Roy Choudhury K, Patel B, Samei E (2017) Effect of radiation dose reduction and reconstruction algorithm on Image noise, contrast, resolution, and detectability of subtle hypoattenuating liver lesions at multidetector CT: filtered back projection versus a commercial model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161736
Drew T, Vo MHL, Olwal A, Jacobson F, Seltzer SE, Wolfe J (2013) Scanners and drillers: characterizing expert visual search through volumetric images. J Vis 13:1–13 CrossRef
Birkelo CC, Chamberlain WE, Phelps PS, Schools PE, Zacks D, Yerushalmy J (1947) Tuberculosis case finding. JAMA 133:359–366 CrossRef
- Assessment of image quality in abdominal CT: potential dose reduction with model-based iterative reconstruction
Jonas Nilsson Althén
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie
Meistgelesene Bücher aus der Radiologie
Mail Icon II