L-P Qi1, Y Li, L Tang, Y-L Li, X-T Li, Y Cui, Y-S Sun, X-P Zhang. 1. Department of Radiology, Peking University School of Oncology, Beijing Cancer Hospital and Institute, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Beijing, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the image quality and radiation dose of chest CT images reconstructed with a blend of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) and filtered back-projection (FBP) with images generated using conventional FBP. METHODS: Patients with chest CT re-examinations were alternately assigned to two scanners with different reconstruction techniques. The study groups included noise index (NI) 11 with 30% ASIR (A30), NI 13 with 40% ASIR (A40), NI 15 with 50% ASIR (A50) and NI 17 with 60% ASIR (A60), sequentially changed every 2 months. The control images were obtained using FBP and NI 11. All acquisitions were performed with automatic dose modulation. Paired t-test and non-parameter test were applied to compare the difference. RESULTS: The radiation doses were significantly lower in the examinations that used ASIR (p<0.001). The mean dose reduction rate was 27.7%, 45.2%, 57.1% and 71.8% for Groups A30, A40, A50 and A60, respectively. The image quality of Groups A30-A50 was not inferior to that of the control examinations. The image noise of Group A60 was greater and subjective image quality was inferior to that of the control. CONCLUSIONS: ASIR enabled the use of a higher NI with automatic dose modulation. With 50% ASIR and a NI of 15, the effective radiation dose was reduced by 57%, without compromising image quality.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the image quality and radiation dose of chest CT images reconstructed with a blend of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) and filtered back-projection (FBP) with images generated using conventional FBP. METHODS:Patients with chest CT re-examinations were alternately assigned to two scanners with different reconstruction techniques. The study groups included noise index (NI) 11 with 30% ASIR (A30), NI 13 with 40% ASIR (A40), NI 15 with 50% ASIR (A50) and NI 17 with 60% ASIR (A60), sequentially changed every 2 months. The control images were obtained using FBP and NI 11. All acquisitions were performed with automatic dose modulation. Paired t-test and non-parameter test were applied to compare the difference. RESULTS: The radiation doses were significantly lower in the examinations that used ASIR (p<0.001). The mean dose reduction rate was 27.7%, 45.2%, 57.1% and 71.8% for Groups A30, A40, A50 and A60, respectively. The image quality of Groups A30-A50 was not inferior to that of the control examinations. The image noise of Group A60 was greater and subjective image quality was inferior to that of the control. CONCLUSIONS:ASIR enabled the use of a higher NI with automatic dose modulation. With 50% ASIR and a NI of 15, the effective radiation dose was reduced by 57%, without compromising image quality.
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Thomas L Toth; Ravi S Kamath; Elkan F Halpern; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Michael Lell; Fabian Hinkmann; Katharina Anders; Paul Deak; Willi A Kalender; Michael Uder; Stephan Achenbach Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-11 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: Harrison H Barrett; Kyle J Myers; Christoph Hoeschen; Matthew A Kupinski; Mark P Little Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Henrique Lane Staniak; Rodolfo Sharovsky; Alexandre Costa Pereira; Cláudio Campi de Castro; Isabela M Benseñor; Paulo A Lotufo; Márcio Sommer Bittencourt Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Christian von Falck; Vesela Bratanova; Thomas Rodt; Bernhard Meyer; Stephan Waldeck; Frank Wacker; Hoen-oh Shin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 3.240