OBJECTIVES: To prospectively assess the impact of sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) on image quality of nonenhanced low-dose lung CT as compared to filtered back projection (FBP). METHODS: Nonenhanced low-dose chest CT (tube current-time product: 30 mAs) was performed on 30 patients at 100 kVp and on 30 patients at 80 kVp. Images were reconstructed with FBP and SAFIRE. Two blinded, independent readers measured image noise; two readers assessed image quality of normal anatomic lung structures on a five-point scale. Radiation dose parameters were recorded. RESULTS: Image noise in datasets reconstructed with FBP (57.4 ± 15.9) was significantly higher than with SAFIRE (31.7 ± 9.8, P < 0.001). Image quality was significantly superior with SAFIRE than with FBP (P < 0.01), without significant difference between FBP at 100 kVp and SAFIRE at 80 kVp (P = 0.68). Diagnostic image quality was present with FBP in 96% of images at 100 kVp and 88% at 80 kVp, and with SAFIRE in 100% at 100 kVp and 98% at 80 kVp. There were significantly more datasets with diagnostic image quality with SAFIRE than with FBP (P < 0.01). Mean CTDI(vol) and effective doses were 1.5 ± 0.7 mGy·cm and 0.7 ± 0.2 mSv at 100 kVp, and 1.4 ± 2.8 mGy · cm and 0.5 ± 0.2 mSv at 80 kVp (P < 0.001, both). CONCLUSIONS: Use of SAFIRE in low-dose lung CT reduces noise, improves image quality, and renders more studies diagnostic as compared to FBP. KEY POINTS: Low-dose computed tomography is an important thoracic investigation tool. Radiation dose can be less than 1 mSv with iterative reconstructions. Iterative reconstructions render more low-dose lung CTs diagnostic compared to conventional reconstructions.
OBJECTIVES: To prospectively assess the impact of sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) on image quality of nonenhanced low-dose lung CT as compared to filtered back projection (FBP). METHODS: Nonenhanced low-dose chest CT (tube current-time product: 30 mAs) was performed on 30 patients at 100 kVp and on 30 patients at 80 kVp. Images were reconstructed with FBP and SAFIRE. Two blinded, independent readers measured image noise; two readers assessed image quality of normal anatomic lung structures on a five-point scale. Radiation dose parameters were recorded. RESULTS: Image noise in datasets reconstructed with FBP (57.4 ± 15.9) was significantly higher than with SAFIRE (31.7 ± 9.8, P < 0.001). Image quality was significantly superior with SAFIRE than with FBP (P < 0.01), without significant difference between FBP at 100 kVp and SAFIRE at 80 kVp (P = 0.68). Diagnostic image quality was present with FBP in 96% of images at 100 kVp and 88% at 80 kVp, and with SAFIRE in 100% at 100 kVp and 98% at 80 kVp. There were significantly more datasets with diagnostic image quality with SAFIRE than with FBP (P < 0.01). Mean CTDI(vol) and effective doses were 1.5 ± 0.7 mGy·cm and 0.7 ± 0.2 mSv at 100 kVp, and 1.4 ± 2.8 mGy · cm and 0.5 ± 0.2 mSv at 80 kVp (P < 0.001, both). CONCLUSIONS: Use of SAFIRE in low-dose lung CT reduces noise, improves image quality, and renders more studies diagnostic as compared to FBP. KEY POINTS: Low-dose computed tomography is an important thoracic investigation tool. Radiation dose can be less than 1 mSv with iterative reconstructions. Iterative reconstructions render more low-dose lung CTs diagnostic compared to conventional reconstructions.
Authors: Peter B Noël; Alexander A Fingerle; Bernhard Renger; Daniela Münzel; Ernst J Rummeny; Martin Dobritz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Adrian Huber; Julia Landau; Lukas Ebner; Yanik Bütikofer; Lars Leidolt; Barbara Brela; Michelle May; Johannes Heverhagen; Andreas Christe Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Guang Ming Lu; Song Luo; Felix G Meinel; Andrew D McQuiston; Chang Sheng Zhou; Xiang Kong; Yan E Zhao; Ling Zheng; U Joseph Schoepf; Long Jiang Zhang Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Patrick D McLaughlin; T Liang; M Homiedan; L J Louis; T W O'Connell; Karl Krzymyk; S Nicolaou; J R Mayo Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2014-07-04