OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate dose reduction and image quality characteristics of chest CT reconstructed with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) compared with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR). METHODS: One hundred patients underwent reference-dose and low-dose unenhanced chest CT with 64-row multidetector CT. Images were reconstructed with 50 % ASIR-filtered back projection blending (ASIR50) for reference-dose CT, and with ASIR50 and MBIR for low-dose CT. Two radiologists assessed the images in a blinded manner for subjective image noise, artefacts and diagnostic acceptability. Objective image noise was measured in the lung parenchyma. Data were analysed using the sign test and pair-wise Student's t-test. RESULTS: Compared with reference-dose CT, there was a 79.0 % decrease in dose-length product with low-dose CT. Low-dose MBIR images had significantly lower objective image noise (16.93 ± 3.00) than low-dose ASIR (49.24 ± 9.11, P < 0.01) and reference-dose ASIR images (24.93 ± 4.65, P < 0.01). Low-dose MBIR images were all diagnostically acceptable. Unique features of low-dose MBIR images included motion artefacts and pixellated blotchy appearances, which did not adversely affect diagnostic acceptability. CONCLUSION: Diagnostically acceptable chest CT images acquired with nearly 80 % less radiation can be obtained using MBIR. MBIR shows greater potential than ASIR for providing diagnostically acceptable low-dose CT images without severely compromising image quality. KEY POINTS: • Model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) creates high-quality low-dose CT images. • MBIR significantly improves image noise and artefacts over adaptive statistical iterative techniques. • MBIR shows greater potential than ASIR for diagnostically acceptable low-dose CT. • The prolonged processing time of MBIR may currently limit its routine use in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate dose reduction and image quality characteristics of chest CT reconstructed with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) compared with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR). METHODS: One hundred patients underwent reference-dose and low-dose unenhanced chest CT with 64-row multidetector CT. Images were reconstructed with 50 % ASIR-filtered back projection blending (ASIR50) for reference-dose CT, and with ASIR50 and MBIR for low-dose CT. Two radiologists assessed the images in a blinded manner for subjective image noise, artefacts and diagnostic acceptability. Objective image noise was measured in the lung parenchyma. Data were analysed using the sign test and pair-wise Student's t-test. RESULTS: Compared with reference-dose CT, there was a 79.0 % decrease in dose-length product with low-dose CT. Low-dose MBIR images had significantly lower objective image noise (16.93 ± 3.00) than low-dose ASIR (49.24 ± 9.11, P < 0.01) and reference-dose ASIR images (24.93 ± 4.65, P < 0.01). Low-dose MBIR images were all diagnostically acceptable. Unique features of low-dose MBIR images included motion artefacts and pixellated blotchy appearances, which did not adversely affect diagnostic acceptability. CONCLUSION: Diagnostically acceptable chest CT images acquired with nearly 80 % less radiation can be obtained using MBIR. MBIR shows greater potential than ASIR for providing diagnostically acceptable low-dose CT images without severely compromising image quality. KEY POINTS: • Model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) creates high-quality low-dose CT images. • MBIR significantly improves image noise and artefacts over adaptive statistical iterative techniques. • MBIR shows greater potential than ASIR for diagnostically acceptable low-dose CT. • The prolonged processing time of MBIR may currently limit its routine use in clinical practice.
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; Matthew D Gilman; Jiang Hsieh; Homer H Pien; Subba R Digumarthy; Jo-Anne O Shepard Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Brendan L Eck; Rachid Fahmi; Kevin M Brown; Stanislav Zabic; Nilgoun Raihani; Jun Miao; David L Wilson Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Stefan B Puchner; Maros Ferencik; Mihaly Karolyi; Synho Do; Pal Maurovich-Horvat; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Udo Hoffmann; Christopher L Schlett Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Ethan A Smith; Jonathan R Dillman; Mitchell M Goodsitt; Emmanuel G Christodoulou; Nahid Keshavarzi; Peter J Strouse Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 11.105