OBJECTIVES: To compare routine dose liver CT reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) versus low dose images reconstructed with FBP and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR). METHODS: In this retrospective study, patients had a routine dose protocol reconstructed with FBP, and again within 17 months (median 6.1 months), had a low dose protocol reconstructed twice, with FBP and ASIR. These reconstructions were compared for noise, image quality, and radiation dose. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were included. (12 male, mean age 58). Noise was significantly lower in low dose images reconstructed with ASIR compared to routine dose images reconstructed with FBP (liver: p < .05, aorta: p < 0.001). Low dose FBP images were scored significantly lower for subjective image quality than low dose ASIR (2.1 ± 0.5, 3.2 ± 0.8, p < 0.001). There was no difference in subjective image quality scores between routine dose FBP images and low dose ASIR images (3.6 ± 0.5, 3.2 ± 0.8, NS).Radiation dose was 41% less for the low dose protocol (4.4 ± 2.4 mSv versus 7.5 ± 5.5 mSv, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our initial results suggest low dose CT images reconstructed with ASIR may have lower measured noise, similar image quality, yet significantly less radiation dose compared with higher dose images reconstructed with FBP.
OBJECTIVES: To compare routine dose liver CT reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) versus low dose images reconstructed with FBP and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR). METHODS: In this retrospective study, patients had a routine dose protocol reconstructed with FBP, and again within 17 months (median 6.1 months), had a low dose protocol reconstructed twice, with FBP and ASIR. These reconstructions were compared for noise, image quality, and radiation dose. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were included. (12 male, mean age 58). Noise was significantly lower in low dose images reconstructed with ASIR compared to routine dose images reconstructed with FBP (liver: p < .05, aorta: p < 0.001). Low dose FBP images were scored significantly lower for subjective image quality than low dose ASIR (2.1 ± 0.5, 3.2 ± 0.8, p < 0.001). There was no difference in subjective image quality scores between routine dose FBP images and low dose ASIR images (3.6 ± 0.5, 3.2 ± 0.8, NS).Radiation dose was 41% less for the low dose protocol (4.4 ± 2.4 mSv versus 7.5 ± 5.5 mSv, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our initial results suggest low dose CT images reconstructed with ASIR may have lower measured noise, similar image quality, yet significantly less radiation dose compared with higher dose images reconstructed with FBP.
Authors: Jonathon Leipsic; Troy M Labounty; Brett Heilbron; James K Min; G B John Mancini; Fay Y Lin; Carolyn Taylor; Allison Dunning; James P Earls Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Yoshiko Sagara; Amy K Hara; William Pavlicek; Alvin C Silva; Robert G Paden; Qing Wu Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Priyanka Prakash; Mannudeep K Kalra; Avinash K Kambadakone; Homer Pien; Jiang Hsieh; Michael A Blake; Dushyant V Sahani Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Kristina T Flicek; Amy K Hara; Alvin C Silva; Qing Wu; Mary B Peter; C Daniel Johnson Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Sarabjeet Singh; Mannudeep K Kalra; Jiang Hsieh; Paul E Licato; Synho Do; Homer H Pien; Michael A Blake Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-09-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Daniele Marin; Rendon C Nelson; Sebastian T Schindera; Samuel Richard; Richard S Youngblood; Terry T Yoshizumi; Ehsan Samei Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: B Schulz; M Beeres; B Bodelle; R Bauer; F Al-Butmeh; A Thalhammer; T J Vogl; J M Kerl Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Martin J Willemink; Tim Leiner; Pim A de Jong; Linda M de Heer; Rutger A J Nievelstein; Arnold M R Schilham; Ricardo P J Budde Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-01-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Martin J Willemink; Pim A de Jong; Tim Leiner; Linda M de Heer; Rutger A J Nievelstein; Ricardo P J Budde; Arnold M R Schilham Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-01-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: William P Shuman; Doug E Green; Janet M Busey; Orpheus Kolokythas; Lee M Mitsumori; Kent M Koprowicz; Jean-Baptiste Thibault; Jiang Hsieh; Adam M Alessio; Eunice Choi; Paul E Kinahan Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 3.959