Literature DB >> 22659592

Normalized metal artifact reduction in head and neck computed tomography.

Michael M Lell1, Esther Meyer, Michael A Kuefner, Matthias S May, Rainer Raupach, Michael Uder, Marc Kachelriess.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Artifacts from dental hardware affect image quality and the visualization of lesions in the oral cavity and oropharynx in computed tomography (CT). Therefore, magnetic resonance imaging is considered the imaging modality of choice in this region. Standard methods for metal artifact reduction (MAR) in CT replace the metal-affected raw data by interpolation, which is prone to new artifacts. We developed a generalized normalization technique for MAR (NMAR) that aims to suppress algorithm-induced artifacts and validated the performance of this algorithm in a clinical trial.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A 3-dimensional forward projection identifies the metal-affected raw data in the original projections after metal is segmented in the image domain by thresholding. A prior image is used to normalize the projections before interpolation. The original raw data are divided pixel-wise by the projection data of the prior image and, after interpolation, are denormalized again. Data from 19 consecutive patients with metal artifacts from dental hardware were reconstructed with standard filtered backprojection (FBP), linear interpolation MAR (LIMAR), and NMAR. The image quality of slices containing metal was analyzed for the severity of artifacts and diagnostic value; magnetic resonance imaging performed the same day on a 3-T system served as a reference standard in all cases.
RESULTS: A total of 260 slices containing metal dental hardware were analyzed. A total of 164 slices were nondiagnostic with FBP, 157 slices with LIMAR, and 87 slices with NMAR. The mean (SD) number of slices per patient with severe artifacts was 10.1 (3.7), 9.6 (4.6), and 5.4 (3.6) and the mean (SD) number of slices with artifacts affecting diagnostic confidence was 3.3 (1.7), 4.9 (2.9), and 3.7 (1.9) for FBP, LIMAR, and NMAR, respectively (P < 0.001). Pairwise comparison did not show significant differences between FBP and LIMAR (P = 0.40), but there were significant differences between FBP and NMAR as well as LIMAR and NMAR (both P < 0.001). Interobserver agreement was excellent (κ = 0.974). Two malignant lesions were unmasked with NMAR image reconstructions. No algorithm-related artifacts were detected in regions that did not contain metal in NMAR images.
CONCLUSION: Normalized MAR has the potential to improve image quality in patients with artifacts from dental hardware and to improve the diagnostic accuracy of CT of the oral cavity and oropharynx.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22659592     DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3182532f17

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Radiol        ISSN: 0020-9996            Impact factor:   6.016


  23 in total

1.  Improved Image Quality in Head and Neck CT Using a 3D Iterative Approach to Reduce Metal Artifact.

Authors:  W Wuest; M S May; M Brand; N Bayerl; A Krauss; M Uder; M Lell
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2015-08-13       Impact factor: 3.825

2.  Automated implant segmentation in cone-beam CT using edge detection and particle counting.

Authors:  Ruben Pauwels; Reinhilde Jacobs; Hilde Bosmans; Pisha Pittayapat; Pasupen Kosalagood; Onanong Silkosessak; Soontra Panmekiate
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 2.924

3.  Reduction of Metal Artifacts and Improvement in Dose Efficiency Using Photon-Counting Detector Computed Tomography and Tin Filtration.

Authors:  Wei Zhou; David J Bartlett; Felix E Diehn; Katrina N Glazebrook; Amy L Kotsenas; Rickey E Carter; Joel G Fletcher; Cynthia H McCollough; Shuai Leng
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 6.016

4.  Development and first validation of a simplified CT-based classification system of soft tissue changes in large-head metal-on-metal total hip replacement: intra- and interrater reliability and association with revision rates in a uniform cohort of 664 arthroplasties.

Authors:  Martijn F Boomsma; Mireille A Edens; Christiaan P Van Lingen; Niek Warringa; Harmen B Ettema; Cees C P M Verheyen; Mario Maas
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2015-05-06       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Follow-up CT and CT angiography after intracranial aneurysm clipping and coiling-improved image quality by iterative metal artifact reduction.

Authors:  Georg Bier; Malte Niklas Bongers; Johann-Martin Hempel; Anja Örgel; Till-Karsten Hauser; Ulrike Ernemann; Florian Hennersdorf
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2017-06-03       Impact factor: 2.804

6.  Improved image quality in abdominal CT in patients who underwent treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma with small metal implants using a raw data-based metal artifact reduction algorithm.

Authors:  Keitaro Sofue; Takeshi Yoshikawa; Yoshiharu Ohno; Noriyuki Negi; Hiroyasu Inokawa; Naoki Sugihara; Kazuro Sugimura
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-12-02       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Frequency split metal artefact reduction in pelvic computed tomography.

Authors:  M M Lell; E Meyer; M Schmid; R Raupach; M S May; M Uder; M Kachelriess
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-03-22       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  [Imaging of the head and neck region].

Authors:  M Lell; K Mantsopoulos; M Uder; W Wuest
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 1.284

9.  Iterative metal artifact reduction: evaluation and optimization of technique.

Authors:  Naveen Subhas; Andrew N Primak; Nancy A Obuchowski; Amit Gupta; Joshua M Polster; Andreas Krauss; Joseph P Iannotti
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2014-08-30       Impact factor: 2.199

10.  Added value of a single-energy projection-based metal-artifact reduction algorithm for the computed tomography evaluation of oral cavity cancers.

Authors:  Kenichiro Hirata; Daisuke Utsunomiya; Seitaro Oda; Masafumi Kidoh; Yoshinori Funama; Hideaki Yuki; Morikatsu Yoshida; Yasuyuki Yamashita
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 2.374

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.