File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000017
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-84896317459
- PMID: 24368613
- WOS: WOS:000332884400004
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Image comparative assessment using iterative reconstructions: Clinical comparison of low-dose abdominal/pelvic computed tomography between adaptive statistical, model-based iterative reconstructions and traditional filtered back projection in 65 patients
Title | Image comparative assessment using iterative reconstructions: Clinical comparison of low-dose abdominal/pelvic computed tomography between adaptive statistical, model-based iterative reconstructions and traditional filtered back projection in 65 patients |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | image quality iterative reconstruction low-dose CT low-dose CT abdomen low-dose CT abdomen/pelvis MBIR model-based model-based iterative reconstruction |
Issue Date | 2014 |
Citation | Investigative Radiology, 2014, v. 49 n. 4, p. 209-216 How to Cite? |
Abstract | OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare image quality (objective and subjective parameters) and confidence in lesion detection between 3 image reconstruction algorithms in computed tomographic (CT) examinations of the abdomen/pelvis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective institutional review board-approved study included 65 patients (mean [SD] age, 71.3 ± 9 years; mean [SD] body mass index, 24.4 [4.8] kg) who underwent routine CT examinations of the abdomen/pelvis followed immediately by 2 low-dose scans. Raw data sets were reconstructed by using filtered back projection (FBP), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR), and a model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR). Measurements of objective noise and CT numbers were compared using repeated-measures analysis of variance. Six subjective image quality parameters were scored. Diagnostic confidence and accuracy in detection of various elementary lesions were performed. RESULTS: Objectively, mean image noise for MBIR was significantly superior at all dose levels (P < 0.001). Subjectively, standard-dose ASIR and low-dose MBIR scans were better than standard-dose FBP scan in all parameters assessed (P < 0.05). Low-dose MBIR scans were comparable with standard-dose ASIR scans in all parameters except at noise index of 70 (approximately 85% dose reduction), where, in this case, the detection of liver lesions less than 5 mm were rated inferior (P < 0.05) with diagnostic accuracy reducing to 77.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose MBIR scan shows superior objective noise reduction compared with standard-dose FBP and ASIR. Subjectively, low-dose MBIR scans at 76% dose reduction were also superior compared with standard-dose FBP and ASIR. However, at dose reductions of 85%, small liver lesions may be missed. Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/197958 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 7.0 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.458 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Vardhanabhuti, V | - |
dc.contributor.author | Riordan, RD | - |
dc.contributor.author | Mitchell, GR | - |
dc.contributor.author | Hyde, C | - |
dc.contributor.author | Roobottom, CA | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2014-06-16T03:40:04Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2014-06-16T03:40:04Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Investigative Radiology, 2014, v. 49 n. 4, p. 209-216 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1536-0210 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/197958 | - |
dc.description.abstract | OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare image quality (objective and subjective parameters) and confidence in lesion detection between 3 image reconstruction algorithms in computed tomographic (CT) examinations of the abdomen/pelvis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective institutional review board-approved study included 65 patients (mean [SD] age, 71.3 ± 9 years; mean [SD] body mass index, 24.4 [4.8] kg) who underwent routine CT examinations of the abdomen/pelvis followed immediately by 2 low-dose scans. Raw data sets were reconstructed by using filtered back projection (FBP), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR), and a model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR). Measurements of objective noise and CT numbers were compared using repeated-measures analysis of variance. Six subjective image quality parameters were scored. Diagnostic confidence and accuracy in detection of various elementary lesions were performed. RESULTS: Objectively, mean image noise for MBIR was significantly superior at all dose levels (P < 0.001). Subjectively, standard-dose ASIR and low-dose MBIR scans were better than standard-dose FBP scan in all parameters assessed (P < 0.05). Low-dose MBIR scans were comparable with standard-dose ASIR scans in all parameters except at noise index of 70 (approximately 85% dose reduction), where, in this case, the detection of liver lesions less than 5 mm were rated inferior (P < 0.05) with diagnostic accuracy reducing to 77.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose MBIR scan shows superior objective noise reduction compared with standard-dose FBP and ASIR. Subjectively, low-dose MBIR scans at 76% dose reduction were also superior compared with standard-dose FBP and ASIR. However, at dose reductions of 85%, small liver lesions may be missed. Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Investigative Radiology | - |
dc.subject | image quality | - |
dc.subject | iterative reconstruction | - |
dc.subject | low-dose CT | - |
dc.subject | low-dose CT abdomen | - |
dc.subject | low-dose CT abdomen/pelvis | - |
dc.subject | MBIR | - |
dc.subject | model-based | - |
dc.subject | model-based iterative reconstruction | - |
dc.title | Image comparative assessment using iterative reconstructions: Clinical comparison of low-dose abdominal/pelvic computed tomography between adaptive statistical, model-based iterative reconstructions and traditional filtered back projection in 65 patients | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000017 | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 24368613 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-84896317459 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 49 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 4 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 209 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 216 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000332884400004 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0020-9996 | - |