X H Hu1, X F Ding, R Z Wu, M M Zhang. 1. Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University College of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the image quality and dose reduction capability of non-enhanced chest computed tomography (CT) examinations using iterative reconstruction in image space (IRIS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A CT water phantom was scanned at 120 kV/150 mAs and 100 kV/270 mAs as the reference, and the tube current was decreased in 10% intervals down to 40% of the reference value. Image noise was evaluated and compared between filtered back-projection (FBP) and IRIS reconstructed data. In the patient study, 90 patients underwent non-enhanced chest CT examinations; the patients were randomly assigned into three groups: group A (n=30) standard dose protocol, 120 kV/110 mAs; group B (n=30) low dose, 100 kV/110 mAs; group C (n=30) low dose, 120 kV/67 mAs. All images were reconstructed by FBP and IRIS algorithm using matched kernels of B30 and I30. The objective image noise (OIN), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the aorta and latissimus dorsi were measured. The subjective image quality and noise were scored using a three-point scale by two experienced radiologists. The results of the subjective and objective image assessment were compared between groups B and C (low dose) IRIS and group A (standard dose) FBP. RESULTS: The phantom study showed comparable image noise between the scans using 60% dose with IRIS and 100% dose with FBP for both 120 and 100 kV. In the patient study, groups A, B, and C had effective dose of 3.81 ± 0.43, 2.40 ± 0.19, and 2.41 ± 0.15 mSv. IRIS significantly improved the OIN, SNR, and CNR compared with FBP for the same patient. The OIN, SNR, and CNR using IRIS in group B and C were improved or comparable to those in group A using FBP. No significant difference was found in subjective image quality and noise between groups B and C using IRIS and group A using FBP. CONCLUSION: Compared with FBP, IRIS can maintain or improve image quality on unenhanced chest CT image reconstruction while saving 40% radiation dose.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To evaluate the image quality and dose reduction capability of non-enhanced chest computed tomography (CT) examinations using iterative reconstruction in image space (IRIS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A CT water phantom was scanned at 120 kV/150 mAs and 100 kV/270 mAs as the reference, and the tube current was decreased in 10% intervals down to 40% of the reference value. Image noise was evaluated and compared between filtered back-projection (FBP) and IRIS reconstructed data. In the patient study, 90 patients underwent non-enhanced chest CT examinations; the patients were randomly assigned into three groups: group A (n=30) standard dose protocol, 120 kV/110 mAs; group B (n=30) low dose, 100 kV/110 mAs; group C (n=30) low dose, 120 kV/67 mAs. All images were reconstructed by FBP and IRIS algorithm using matched kernels of B30 and I30. The objective image noise (OIN), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the aorta and latissimus dorsi were measured. The subjective image quality and noise were scored using a three-point scale by two experienced radiologists. The results of the subjective and objective image assessment were compared between groups B and C (low dose) IRIS and group A (standard dose) FBP. RESULTS: The phantom study showed comparable image noise between the scans using 60% dose with IRIS and 100% dose with FBP for both 120 and 100 kV. In the patient study, groups A, B, and C had effective dose of 3.81 ± 0.43, 2.40 ± 0.19, and 2.41 ± 0.15 mSv. IRIS significantly improved the OIN, SNR, and CNR compared with FBP for the same patient. The OIN, SNR, and CNR using IRIS in group B and C were improved or comparable to those in group A using FBP. No significant difference was found in subjective image quality and noise between groups B and C using IRIS and group A using FBP. CONCLUSION: Compared with FBP, IRIS can maintain or improve image quality on unenhanced chest CT image reconstruction while saving 40% radiation dose.
Authors: N Sakai; H Yabuuchi; M Kondo; Y Matsuo; T Kamitani; M Nagao; M Jinnouchi; M Yonezawa; T Kojima; Y Yano; H Honda Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-07-08 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Y Matsunaga; A Kawaguchi; K Kobayashi; Y Kinomura; M Kobayashi; Y Asada; K Minami; S Suzuki; K Chida Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-06-04 Impact factor: 3.039
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: Frédéric A Miéville; Laureline Berteloot; Albane Grandjean; Paul Ayestaran; François Gudinchet; Sabine Schmidt; Francis Brunelle; François O Bochud; Francis R Verdun Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2012-12-07
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: Claudia Zacharias; Adam M Alessio; Randolph K Otto; Ramesh S Iyer; Grace S Philips; Jonathan O Swanson; Mahesh M Thapa Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 3.959