OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prospectively, in patients undergoing body CTA, the radiation dose saving potential of raw data-based iterative reconstruction as compared to filtered back projection (FBP). METHODS: Twenty-five patients underwent thoraco-abdominal CTA with 128-slice dual-source CT, operating both tubes at 120 kV. Full-dose (FD) images were reconstructed with FBP and were compared to half-dose (HD) images with FBP and HD-images with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE), both reconstructed using data from only one tube-detector-system. Image quality and sharpness of the aortic contour were assessed. Vessel attenuation and noise were measured, contrast-to-noise-ratio was calculated. RESULTS: Noise as image quality deteriorating artefact occurred in 24/25 (96%) HD-FBP but not in FD-FBP and HD-raw data-based iterative reconstruction datasets (p < 0.001). Other artefacts occurred with similar prevalence among the datasets. Sharpness of the aortic contour was higher for FD-FBP and HD-raw data-based iterative reconstruction as compared to HD-FBP (p < 0.001). Aortoiliac attenuation was similar among all datasets (p > 0.05). Lowest noise was found for HD-raw data-based iterative reconstruction (7.23HU), being 9.4% lower than that in FD-FBP (7.98HU, p < 0.05) and 30.8% lower than in HD-FBP images (10.44HU, p < 0.001). Contrast-to-noise-ratio was lower in HD-FBP (p < 0.001) and higher in HD-raw data-based iterative reconstruction (p < 0.001) as compared to FD-FBP. CONCLUSION: Intra-individual comparisons of image quality of body CTA suggest that raw data-based iterative reconstruction allows for dose reduction >50% while maintaining image quality. Key Points • Raw data-based iterative reconstruction reduces image noise and improves image quality as compared to filtered back projection • At a similar radiation dose, raw data-based iterative reconstruction improves the sharpness of vessel contours • In body CTA a dose reduction of >50% might be possible when using raw data-based iterative reconstructions, while image quality can be maintained.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prospectively, in patients undergoing body CTA, the radiation dose saving potential of raw data-based iterative reconstruction as compared to filtered back projection (FBP). METHODS: Twenty-five patients underwent thoraco-abdominal CTA with 128-slice dual-source CT, operating both tubes at 120 kV. Full-dose (FD) images were reconstructed with FBP and were compared to half-dose (HD) images with FBP and HD-images with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE), both reconstructed using data from only one tube-detector-system. Image quality and sharpness of the aortic contour were assessed. Vessel attenuation and noise were measured, contrast-to-noise-ratio was calculated. RESULTS: Noise as image quality deteriorating artefact occurred in 24/25 (96%) HD-FBP but not in FD-FBP and HD-raw data-based iterative reconstruction datasets (p < 0.001). Other artefacts occurred with similar prevalence among the datasets. Sharpness of the aortic contour was higher for FD-FBP and HD-raw data-based iterative reconstruction as compared to HD-FBP (p < 0.001). Aortoiliac attenuation was similar among all datasets (p > 0.05). Lowest noise was found for HD-raw data-based iterative reconstruction (7.23HU), being 9.4% lower than that in FD-FBP (7.98HU, p < 0.05) and 30.8% lower than in HD-FBP images (10.44HU, p < 0.001). Contrast-to-noise-ratio was lower in HD-FBP (p < 0.001) and higher in HD-raw data-based iterative reconstruction (p < 0.001) as compared to FD-FBP. CONCLUSION: Intra-individual comparisons of image quality of body CTA suggest that raw data-based iterative reconstruction allows for dose reduction >50% while maintaining image quality. Key Points • Raw data-based iterative reconstruction reduces image noise and improves image quality as compared to filtered back projection • At a similar radiation dose, raw data-based iterative reconstruction improves the sharpness of vessel contours • In body CTA a dose reduction of >50% might be possible when using raw data-based iterative reconstructions, while image quality can be maintained.
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: B Wintersperger; T Jakobs; P Herzog; S Schaller; K Nikolaou; C Suess; C Weber; M Reiser; C Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2004-12-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Matthias S May; Wolfgang Wüst; Michael Brand; Christian Stahl; Thomas Allmendinger; Bernhard Schmidt; Michael Uder; Michael M Lell Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Thomas L Toth; Leena M Hamberg; Michael A Blake; Jo-Anne Shepard; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-01-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sebastian T Schindera; Patricia Graca; Michael A Patak; Susanne Abderhalden; Gabriel von Allmen; Peter Vock; Zsolt Szucs-Farkas Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 6.016
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: Ullrich Ebersberger; Francesco Tricarico; U Joseph Schoepf; Philipp Blanke; J Reid Spears; Garrett W Rowe; William T Halligan; Thomas Henzler; Fabian Bamberg; Alexander W Leber; Ellen Hoffmann; Paul Apfaltrer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Peter B Noël; Thomas Köhler; Alexander A Fingerle; Kevin M Brown; Stanislav Zabic; Daniela Münzel; Bernhard Haller; Thomas Baum; Martin Henninger; Reinhard Meier; Ernst J Rummeny; Martin Dobritz Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2014-10-09
Authors: Andreas Christe; Johannes Heverhagen; Christoph Ozdoba; Christian Weisstanner; Stefan Ulzheimer; Lukas Ebner Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2013-11-28
Authors: Dan Xia; David A Langan; Stephen B Solomon; Zheng Zhang; Buxin Chen; Hao Lai; Emil Y Sidky; Xiaochuan Pan Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2016-10-03 Impact factor: 3.609