Impact of iterative reconstruction on image quality and radiation dose in multidetector CT of large body size adults.

Department of Abdominal Imaging and Intervention, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, White 270, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
European Radiology (Impact Factor: 4.34). 04/2012; 22(8):1631-40. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-012-2424-3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To compare image quality and radiation dose using Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction (ASiR) and Filtered Back Projection (FBP) in patients weighing ≥ 91 kg.
In this Institution Review Board-approved retrospective study, single-phase contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT examinations of 100 adults weighing ≥ 91 kg (mean body weight: 107.6 ± 17.4 kg range: 91-181.9 kg) with (1) ASiR and (2) FBP were reviewed by two readers in a blinded fashion for subjective measures of image quality (using a subjective standardized numerical scale and objective noise) and for radiation exposure. Imaging parameters and radiation dose results of the two techniques were compared within weight and BMI sub-categories.
All examinations were found to be of adequate quality. Both subjective (mean = 1.4 ± 0.5 vs. 1.6 ± 0.6, P < 0.05) and objective noise (13.0 ± 3.2 vs.19.5 ± 5.7, P < 0.0001) were lower with ASiR. Average radiation dose reduction of 31.5 % was achieved using ASiR (mean CTDIvol. ASiR: 13.5 ± 7.3 mGy; FBP: 19.7 ± 9.0 mGy, P < 0.0001). Other measures of image quality were comparable between the two techniques. Trends for all parameters were similar in patients across weight and BMI sub-categories.
In obese individuals, abdominal CT images reconstructed using ASiR provide diagnostic images with reduced image noise at lower radiation dose.
• CT images in obese adults are noisy, even with high radiation dose. • Newer iterative reconstruction techniques have theoretical advantages in obese patients. • Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction should reduce image noise and radiation dose. • This has been proven in abdominopelvic CT images of obese patients.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To reduce radiation dose while maintaining image quality in low-dose chest computed tomography (CT) by combining adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) and automatic tube current modulation (ATCM). Patients undergoing cancer screening (n = 200) were subjected to 64-slice multidetector chest CT scanning with ASIR and ATCM. Patients were divided into groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 (n = 50 each), with a noise index (NI) of 15, 20, 30, and 40, respectively. Each image set was reconstructed with 4 ASIR levels (0% ASIR, 30% ASIR, 50% ASIR, and 80% ASIR) in each group. Two radiologists assessed subjective image noise, image artifacts, and visibility of the anatomical structures. Objective image noise and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were measured, and effective dose (ED) was recorded. Increased NI was associated with increased subjective and objective image noise results (P<0.001), and SNR decreased with increasing NI (P<0.001). These values improved with increased ASIR levels (P<0.001). Images from all 4 groups were clinically diagnosable. Images with NI = 30 and 50% ASIR had average subjective image noise scores and nearly average anatomical structure visibility scores, with a mean objective image noise of 23.42 HU. The EDs for groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 were 2.79±1.17, 1.69±0.59, 0.74±0.29, and 0.37±0.22 mSv, respectively. Compared to group 1 (NI = 15), the ED reductions were 39.43%, 73.48%, and 86.74% for groups 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Using NI = 30 with 50% ASIR in the chest CT protocol, we obtained average or above-average image quality but a reduced ED.
    PLoS ONE 04/2014; 9(4):e92414. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0092414 · 3.53 Impact Factor
    This article is viewable in ResearchGate's enriched format
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pure iterative reconstruction (Pure IR) has been proposed as a solution to improve diagnostic quality of low dose CT images. We assess the performance of model based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) in improving conventional dose CT enterography (CTE) images.
    Abdominal Imaging 08/2014; DOI:10.1007/s00261-014-0222-x · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: To compare the image quality and radiation dose between iterative reconstruction (IR) and standard filtered back projection (FBP) in CT of the chest and abdomen. Materials and methods: Thoracic CT was performed in 50 patients (38 male, 12 female; mean age, 51 +/- 23 yrs; range, 7-85 yrs) and abdominal CT was performed in 50 patients (36 male, 14 female; mean age, 62 +/- 13 yrs; range, 20-85 yrs), using IR as well as FBP for image reconstruction. Image noise was quantitatively assessed measuring standard deviation of Hounsfield Units (HU) in defined regions of interest in subcutaneous tissue. Scan length and Computed Tomography Dose Index (CTDI) were documented. Scan length, image noise, and CTDI of both reconstruction techniques were compared by using paired tests according to the nature of variables (McNemar test or Student t test). Overall subjective image quality and subjective image noise were compared. Results: There was no significant difference between the protocols in terms of mean scan length (p > 0.05). Image noise was statistically significantly higher with IR, although the difference was clinically insignificant (13.3 +/- 3.0 HU and 13.6 +/- 3.0 HU for thoracic CT and 11.5 +/- 3.1 HU and 11.7 +/- 3.0 HU for abdominal CT, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in overall subjective image quality and subjective image noise. The radiation dose was significantly lower with IR. Volume-weighted CTDI decreased by 64% (6.2 +/- 2.5 mGy versus 17.1 +/- 9.5 mGy, p<0.001) for thoracic CT and by 58% (7.8 +/- 4.6 mGy versus 18.5 + 8.6 mGy, p < 0.001) for abdominal CT. Conclusions: Our study shows that in thoracic and abdominal CT with IR, there is no clinically significant impact on image quality, yet a significant radiation dose reduction compared to FBP.
    European Journal of Radiology 05/2014; 83(8). DOI:10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.05.017 · 2.16 Impact Factor