Summation or axial slab average intensity projection of abdominal thin-section CT datasets: can they substitute for the primary reconstruction from raw projection data?

We hypothesized that that the summation or axial slab average intensity projection (AIP) techniques can substitute for the primary reconstruction (PR) from a raw projection data for abdominal applications. To compare with PR datasets (5-mm thick, 20% overlap) in 150 abdominal studies, corresponding summation and AIP datasets were calculated from 2-mm thick images (50% overlap). The root-mean-square error between PR and summation images was significantly greater than that between PR and AIP images (9.55 [median] vs. 7.12, p < 0.0001, Wilcoxon signed-ranks test). Four radiologists independently compared 2,000 test images (PR [as control], summation, or AIP) and their corresponding PR images to prove that the identicalness of summation or AIP images to PR images was not 1% less than the assessed identicalness of PR images to themselves (Wald-type test for clustered matched-pair data in a non-inferiority design). For each reader, both summation and AIP images were not inferior to PR images in terms of being rated identical to PR (p < 0.05). Although summation and AIP techniques produce images that differ from PR images, these differences are not easily perceived by radiologists. Thus, the summation or AIP techniques can substitute for PR for the primary interpretation of abdominal CT.