OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the image quality of iterative reconstruction in image space (IRIS) in half-dose (HD) datasets compared with full-dose (FD) and HD filtered back projection (FBP) reconstruction in abdominal computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: To acquire data with FD and HD simultaneously, contrast-enhanced abdominal CT was performed with a dual-source CT system, both tubes operating at 120 kV, 100 ref.mAs, and pitch 0.8. Three different image datasets were reconstructed from the raw data: Standard FD images applying FBP which served as reference, HD images applying FBP and HD images applying IRIS. For the HD data sets, only data from 1 tube detector-system was used. Quantitative image quality analysis was performed by measuring image noise in tissue and air. Qualitative image quality was evaluated according to the European Guidelines on Quality criteria for CT. Additional assessment of artifacts, lesion conspicuity, and edge sharpness was performed. RESULTS: : Image noise in soft tissue was substantially decreased in HD-IRIS (-3.4 HU, -22%) and increased in HD-FBP (+6.2 HU, +39%) images when compared with the reference (mean noise, 15.9 HU). No significant differences between the FD-FBP and HD-IRIS images were found for the visually sharp anatomic reproduction, overall diagnostic acceptability (P = 0.923), lesion conspicuity (P = 0.592), and edge sharpness (P = 0.589), while HD-FBP was rated inferior. Streak artifacts and beam hardening was significantly more prominent in HD-FBP while HD-IRIS images exhibited a slightly different noise pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Direct intrapatient comparison of standard FD body protocols and HD-IRIS reconstruction suggest that the latest iterative reconstruction algorithms allow for approximately 50% dose reduction without deterioration of the high image quality necessary for confident diagnosis.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the image quality of iterative reconstruction in image space (IRIS) in half-dose (HD) datasets compared with full-dose (FD) and HD filtered back projection (FBP) reconstruction in abdominal computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: To acquire data with FD and HD simultaneously, contrast-enhanced abdominal CT was performed with a dual-source CT system, both tubes operating at 120 kV, 100 ref.mAs, and pitch 0.8. Three different image datasets were reconstructed from the raw data: Standard FD images applying FBP which served as reference, HD images applying FBP and HD images applying IRIS. For the HD data sets, only data from 1 tube detector-system was used. Quantitative image quality analysis was performed by measuring image noise in tissue and air. Qualitative image quality was evaluated according to the European Guidelines on Quality criteria for CT. Additional assessment of artifacts, lesion conspicuity, and edge sharpness was performed. RESULTS: : Image noise in soft tissue was substantially decreased in HD-IRIS (-3.4 HU, -22%) and increased in HD-FBP (+6.2 HU, +39%) images when compared with the reference (mean noise, 15.9 HU). No significant differences between the FD-FBP and HD-IRIS images were found for the visually sharp anatomic reproduction, overall diagnostic acceptability (P = 0.923), lesion conspicuity (P = 0.592), and edge sharpness (P = 0.589), while HD-FBP was rated inferior. Streak artifacts and beam hardening was significantly more prominent in HD-FBP while HD-IRIS images exhibited a slightly different noise pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Direct intrapatient comparison of standard FD body protocols and HD-IRIS reconstruction suggest that the latest iterative reconstruction algorithms allow for approximately 50% dose reduction without deterioration of the high image quality necessary for confident diagnosis.
Authors: Harrison H Barrett; Kyle J Myers; Christoph Hoeschen; Matthew A Kupinski; Mark P Little Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Doris Leithner; Tatjana Gruber-Rouh; Martin Beeres; Julian L Wichmann; Scherwin Mahmoudi; Simon S Martin; Lukas Lenga; Moritz H Albrecht; Christian Booz; Thomas J Vogl; Jan-Erik Scholtz Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-06-05 Impact factor: 3.039