CT of the chest with model-based, fully iterative reconstruction: comparison with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction

BMC Medical Imaging

Hajime Sakuma¹  Shuichi Murashima¹  Naoki Nagasawa¹  Kakuya Kitagawa¹  Yasutaka Ichikawa¹ 

[1] Department of Radiology, Mie University Hospital, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie 514-8507, Japan

关键词: Chest;    Radiation dose reduction;    Low-dose computed tomography;    Filtered back projection;    Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction;    Model-based iterative reconstruction;   

Others  :  1090699
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2342-13-27

 received in 2013-03-24, accepted in 2013-08-08,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The recently developed model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) enables significant reduction of image noise and artifacts, compared with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) and filtered back projection (FBP). The purpose of this study was to evaluate lesion detectability of low-dose chest computed tomography (CT) with MBIR in comparison with ASIR and FBP.

Methods

Chest CT was acquired with 64-slice CT (Discovery CT750HD) with standard-dose (5.7 ± 2.3 mSv) and low-dose (1.6 ± 0.8 mSv) conditions in 55 patients (aged 72 ± 7 years) who were suspected of lung disease on chest radiograms. Low-dose CT images were reconstructed with MBIR, ASIR 50% and FBP, and standard-dose CT images were reconstructed with FBP, using a reconstructed slice thickness of 0.625 mm. Two observers evaluated the image quality of abnormal lung and mediastinal structures on a 5-point scale (Score 5 = excellent and score 1 = non-diagnostic). The objective image noise was also measured as the standard deviation of CT intensity in the descending aorta.

Results

The image quality score of enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes on low-dose MBIR CT (4.7 ± 0.5) was significantly improved in comparison with low-dose FBP and ASIR CT (3.0 ± 0.5, p = 0.004; 4.0 ± 0.5, p = 0.02, respectively), and was nearly identical to the score of standard-dose FBP image (4.8 ± 0.4, p = 0.66). Concerning decreased lung attenuation (bulla, emphysema, or cyst), the image quality score on low-dose MBIR CT (4.9 ± 0.2) was slightly better compared to low-dose FBP and ASIR CT (4.5 ± 0.6, p = 0.01; 4.6 ± 0.5, p = 0.01, respectively). There were no significant differences in image quality scores of visualization of consolidation or mass, ground-glass attenuation, or reticular opacity among low- and standard-dose CT series. Image noise with low-dose MBIR CT (11.6 ± 1.0 Hounsfield units (HU)) were significantly lower than with low-dose ASIR (21.1 ± 2.6 HU, p < 0.0005), low-dose FBP CT (30.9 ± 3.9 HU, p < 0.0005), and standard-dose FBP CT (16.6 ± 2.3 HU, p < 0.0005).

Conclusion

MBIR shows greater potential than ASIR for providing diagnostically acceptable low-dose CT without compromising image quality. With radiation dose reduction of >70%, MBIR can provide equivalent lesion detectability of standard-dose FBP CT.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Ichikawa et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Brenner DJ, Hall EJ: Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007, 357:2277-2284.
• [2]Nelson RC, Feuerlein S, Boll DT: New iterative reconstruction techniques for cardiovascular computed tomography: how do they work, and what are the advantages and disadvantages? J Cardiovac Comput Tomgr 2011, 5:286-292.
• [3]Prakash P, Kalra MK, Ackman JB, Digmarthy SR, Hsieh J, Do S, et al.: Diffuse lung disease: CT of the chest with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Radiology 2010, 256:261-269.
• [4]Marin D, Nelson RC, Schindera ST, Richard S, Youngblood RS, Yoshizumi TT, et al.: Low-tube-voltage, high-tube-current multidetector abdominal CT: improved image quality and decreased radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm – initial clinical experience. Radiology 2010, 254:145-153.
• [5]Leipsic J, Nguyen G, Brown J, Sin D, Mayo JR: A prospective evaluation of dose reduction and image quality in chest CT using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010, 195:1095-1099.
• [6]Singh S, Kalra MK, Gilman MD, Hseigh J, Pien HH, Digmarthy SR, et al.: Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: a pilot study. Radiology 2011, 259:565-573.
• [7]Leipsic J, Labountry TM, Heilbron B, Min JK, Mancini GB, Lin FY, Taylor C, Dunning A, Earls JP: Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: assessment of image noise and image quality in coronary CT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010, 195:649-654.
• [8]Sagara Y, Hara A, Pavlicek W, Silva AC, Paden RG, Wu Q: Abdominal CT: comparison of low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010, 195:713-719.
• [9]Prakash P, Kalra MK, Kambadakone AK, Pien H, Hsieh J, Blake MA, Sahani DV: Reducing abdominal CT radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Invest Radiol 2010, 45:202-210.
• [10]Thibault JB, Sauer KD, Bouman CA, Hsieh J: A three-dimensional statistical approach to improved image quality for multislice helical CT. Med Phys 2007, 34:4526-4544.
• [11]Yamada Y, Jinzaki M, Tanami Y, et al.: Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for ultralow-dose computed tomography of the lung. A pilot study. Invest Radiol 2012, 47:482-489.
• [12]Katsura M, Matsuda I, Akahane M, et al.: Model-base iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: comparison with adaptive statistical reconstruction technique. Eur Radiol 2012, 22:1613-1623.
• [13]EUR 16262: European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. 2009. http://www.drs.dk/guidelines/ct/quality webcite
• [14]Funama Y, Awai K, Miyazaki O, et al.: Improvement of low-contrast detectability in low-dose hepatic multidetector computed tomography using a novel adaptive filter: evaluation with a computer- simulated liver including tumors. Invest Radiol 2006, 41:1-7.
• [15]Funama Y, Awai K, Nakayama Y, et al.: Radiation dose reduction without degradation of low-contrast detectability at abdominal multisection CT with a low-tube voltage technique: phantom study. Radiology 2005, 237:905-910.
• [16]Kalra MK, Maher MM, Blake MA, et al.: Detection and characterization of lesions on low-radiation-dose abdominal CT images postprocessed with noise reduction filters. Radiology 2004, 232:791-797.
• [17]Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al.: Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004, 230:619-628.
• [18]Linton OW, Mettler FA Jr: National conference ondose reduction in CT, with an emphasis on pediatric patients. AJR 2003, 181:321-329.
• [19]Nakayama Y, Awai K, Funama Y, et al.: Abdominal CT with low tube voltage: preliminary observations about radiation dose, contrast enhancement, image quality, and noise. Radiology 2005, 237:945-951.
• [20]Okumura M, Ota T, Kainuma K, Sayre JW, Mc-Nitt-Gray M, Katada K: Effect of edge-preserving adaptive image filter on low-contrast detectability in CT systems: application of ROC analysis. Int J Biomed Imaging 2008, 2008:379486.
• [21]Valentin J: International Commission on Radiation Protection. Managing patient dose in multidetector computed tomography (MDCT): ICRP publication 102. Ann ICRP 2007, 37:1-79.
• [22]Kalra MK, Maher MM, Sahani DV, et al.: Low dose CT of the abdomen: evaluation of image improvement with use of noise reduction filters pilot study. Radiology 2003, 228:251-256.
• [23]Ziegler A, Kohler T, Proska R: Noise and resolution in images reconstructed with FBP and OSC algorithms for CT. Med Phys 2007, 34:585-598.
• [24]Yu Z, Thibault J, Bouman C, Sauer K, Hsieh J: Fast model-base X-ray CT reconstruction using spatially non-homogeneous ICD optimization. IEEE Trans Image Process 2011, 20:161-175.
• [25]Scheffel H, Stolzmann P, Schlett CL, et al.: Coronary artery plaques: Cardiac CT with model-based and adaptive-statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Eur J Radiol 2011. in press
• [26]Xu J, Mahesh M, Tsui BMW: Is iterative reconstruction ready for MDCT? J Am Coll Radiol 2009, 6:274-276.