OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction (AIDR) on image quality and radiation dose in phantom and patient studies. METHODS: A phantom was examined in volumetric mode on a 320-detector CT at different tube currents from 25 to 550 mAs. CT images were reconstructed with AIDR and with Filtered Back Projection (FBP) reconstruction algorithm. Image noise, Contrast-to-Noise Ratio (CNR), Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) and spatial resolution were compared between FBP and AIDR images. AIDR was then tested on 15 CT examinations of the lumbar spine in a prospective study. Again, FBP and AIDR images were compared. Image noise and SNR were analysed using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: In the phantom, spatial resolution assessment showed no significant difference between FBP and AIDR reconstructions. Image noise was lower with AIDR than with FBP images with a mean reduction of 40%. CNR and SNR were also improved with AIDR. In patients, quantitative and subjective evaluation showed that image noise was significantly lower with AIDR than with FBP. SNR was also greater with AIDR than with FBP. CONCLUSION: Compared to traditional FBP reconstruction techniques, AIDR significantly improves image quality and has the potential to decrease radiation dose. KEY POINTS: This study showed that Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction (AIDR) reduces image noise. In a phantom image noise was reduced without altering spatial resolution. In patients AIDR reduced the image noise in lumbar spine CT. AIDR can potentially reduce the dose for lumbar spine CT by 52%.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction (AIDR) on image quality and radiation dose in phantom and patient studies. METHODS: A phantom was examined in volumetric mode on a 320-detector CT at different tube currents from 25 to 550 mAs. CT images were reconstructed with AIDR and with Filtered Back Projection (FBP) reconstruction algorithm. Image noise, Contrast-to-Noise Ratio (CNR), Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) and spatial resolution were compared between FBP and AIDR images. AIDR was then tested on 15 CT examinations of the lumbar spine in a prospective study. Again, FBP and AIDR images were compared. Image noise and SNR were analysed using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: In the phantom, spatial resolution assessment showed no significant difference between FBP and AIDR reconstructions. Image noise was lower with AIDR than with FBP images with a mean reduction of 40%. CNR and SNR were also improved with AIDR. In patients, quantitative and subjective evaluation showed that image noise was significantly lower with AIDR than with FBP. SNR was also greater with AIDR than with FBP. CONCLUSION: Compared to traditional FBP reconstruction techniques, AIDR significantly improves image quality and has the potential to decrease radiation dose. KEY POINTS: This study showed that Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction (AIDR) reduces image noise. In a phantom image noise was reduced without altering spatial resolution. In patients AIDR reduced the image noise in lumbar spine CT. AIDR can potentially reduce the dose for lumbar spine CT by 52%.
Authors: Priyanka Prakash; Mannudeep K Kalra; Jeanne B Ackman; Subba R Digumarthy; Jiang Hsieh; Synho Do; Jo-Anne O Shepard; Matthew D Gilman Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Reza Fazel; Harlan M Krumholz; Yongfei Wang; Joseph S Ross; Jersey Chen; Henry H Ting; Nilay D Shah; Khurram Nasir; Andrew J Einstein; Brahmajee K Nallamothu Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-08-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Aaron Sodickson; Pieter F Baeyens; Katherine P Andriole; Luciano M Prevedello; Richard D Nawfel; Richard Hanson; Ramin Khorasani Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 11.105
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: 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: 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: 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