PURPOSE: To assess radiation dose reduction and image quality for weight-based chest computed tomographic (CT) examination results reconstructed using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With local ethical committee approval, weight-adjusted chest CT examinations were performed using ASIR in 98 patients and filtered backprojection (FBP) in 54 weight-matched patients on a 64-slice multidetector CT. Patients were categorized into 3 groups: 60 kg or less (n = 32), 61 to 90 kg (n = 77), and 91 kg or more (n = 43) for weight-based adjustment of noise indices for automatic exposure control (Auto mA; GE Healthcare, Waukesha, Wis). Remaining scan parameters were held constant at 0.984:1 pitch, 120 kilovolts (peak), 40-mm table feed per rotation, and 2.5-mm section thickness. Patients' weight, scanning parameters, and CT dose index volume were recorded. Effective doses (EDs) were estimated. Image noise was measured in the descending thoracic aorta at the level of the carina. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance. RESULTS: Compared with FBP, ASIR was associated with an overall mean (SD) decrease of 27.6% in ED (ASIR, 8.8 [2.3] mSv; FBP, 12.2 [2.1] mSv; P < 0.0001). With the use of ASIR, the ED values were 6.5 (1.8) mSv (28.8% decrease), 7.3 (1.6) mSv (27.3% decrease), and 12.8 (2.3) mSv (26.8% decrease) for the weight groups of 60 kg or less, 61 to 90 kg, and 91 kg or more, respectively, compared with 9.2 (2.3) mSv, 10.0 (2.0) mSv, and 17.4 (2.1) mSv with FBP (P < 0.0001). Despite dose reduction, there was less noise with ASIR (12.6 [2.9] mSv) than with FBP (16.6 [6.2] mSv; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction helps reduce chest CT radiation dose and improve image quality compared with the conventionally used FBP image reconstruction.
PURPOSE: To assess radiation dose reduction and image quality for weight-based chest computed tomographic (CT) examination results reconstructed using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With local ethical committee approval, weight-adjusted chest CT examinations were performed using ASIR in 98 patients and filtered backprojection (FBP) in 54 weight-matched patients on a 64-slice multidetector CT. Patients were categorized into 3 groups: 60 kg or less (n = 32), 61 to 90 kg (n = 77), and 91 kg or more (n = 43) for weight-based adjustment of noise indices for automatic exposure control (Auto mA; GE Healthcare, Waukesha, Wis). Remaining scan parameters were held constant at 0.984:1 pitch, 120 kilovolts (peak), 40-mm table feed per rotation, and 2.5-mm section thickness. Patients' weight, scanning parameters, and CT dose index volume were recorded. Effective doses (EDs) were estimated. Image noise was measured in the descending thoracic aorta at the level of the carina. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance. RESULTS: Compared with FBP, ASIR was associated with an overall mean (SD) decrease of 27.6% in ED (ASIR, 8.8 [2.3] mSv; FBP, 12.2 [2.1] mSv; P < 0.0001). With the use of ASIR, the ED values were 6.5 (1.8) mSv (28.8% decrease), 7.3 (1.6) mSv (27.3% decrease), and 12.8 (2.3) mSv (26.8% decrease) for the weight groups of 60 kg or less, 61 to 90 kg, and 91 kg or more, respectively, compared with 9.2 (2.3) mSv, 10.0 (2.0) mSv, and 17.4 (2.1) mSv with FBP (P < 0.0001). Despite dose reduction, there was less noise with ASIR (12.6 [2.9] mSv) than with FBP (16.6 [6.2] mSv; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction helps reduce chest CT radiation dose and improve image quality compared with the conventionally used FBP image reconstruction.
Authors: F Tatsugami; M Matsuki; G Nakai; Y Inada; S Kanazawa; Y Takeda; H Morita; H Takada; S Yoshikawa; K Fukumura; Y Narumi Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Y T Niu; D Mehta; Z R Zhang; Y X Zhang; Y F Liu; T L Kang; J F Xian; Z C Wang Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-02-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Stephan Baumueller; Anna Winklehner; Christoph Karlo; Robert Goetti; Thomas Flohr; Erich W Russi; Thomas Frauenfelder; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: G A Vorona; G Zuccoli; T Sutcavage; B L Clayton; R C Ceschin; A Panigrahy Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: B M Gramer; D Muenzel; V Leber; A-K von Thaden; H Feussner; A Schneider; M Vembar; N Soni; E J Rummeny; A M Huber Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: O Honda; M Yanagawa; A Inoue; A Kikuyama; S Yoshida; H Sumikawa; K Tobino; M Koyama; N Tomiyama Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2010-11-16 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Lucas L Geyer; Markus Körner; Andreas Harrieder; Fabian G Mueck; Zsuzsanna Deak; Stefan Wirth; Ulrich Linsenmaier Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-02-08 Impact factor: 3.039