BACKGROUND: The potential effects of ionizing radiation are of particular concern in children. The model-based iterative reconstruction VEO(TM) is a technique commercialized to improve image quality and reduce noise compared with the filtered back-projection (FBP) method. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potential of VEO(TM) on diagnostic image quality and dose reduction in pediatric chest CT examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty children (mean 11.4 years) with cystic fibrosis underwent either a standard CT or a moderately reduced-dose CT plus a minimum-dose CT performed at 100 kVp. Reduced-dose CT examinations consisted of two consecutive acquisitions: one moderately reduced-dose CT with increased noise index (NI = 70) and one minimum-dose CT at CTDIvol 0.14 mGy. Standard CTs were reconstructed using the FBP method while low-dose CTs were reconstructed using FBP and VEO. Two senior radiologists evaluated diagnostic image quality independently by scoring anatomical structures using a four-point scale (1 = excellent, 2 = clear, 3 = diminished, 4 = non-diagnostic). Standard deviation (SD) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were also computed. RESULTS: At moderately reduced doses, VEO images had significantly lower SD (P < 0.001) and higher SNR (P < 0.05) in comparison to filtered back-projection images. Further improvements were obtained at minimum-dose CT. The best diagnostic image quality was obtained with VEO at minimum-dose CT for the small structures (subpleural vessels and lung fissures) (P < 0.001). The potential for dose reduction was dependent on the diagnostic task because of the modification of the image texture produced by this reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: At minimum-dose CT, VEO enables important dose reduction depending on the clinical indication and makes visible certain small structures that were not perceptible with filtered back-projection.
BACKGROUND: The potential effects of ionizing radiation are of particular concern in children. The model-based iterative reconstruction VEO(TM) is a technique commercialized to improve image quality and reduce noise compared with the filtered back-projection (FBP) method. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potential of VEO(TM) on diagnostic image quality and dose reduction in pediatric chest CT examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty children (mean 11.4 years) with cystic fibrosis underwent either a standard CT or a moderately reduced-dose CT plus a minimum-dose CT performed at 100 kVp. Reduced-dose CT examinations consisted of two consecutive acquisitions: one moderately reduced-dose CT with increased noise index (NI = 70) and one minimum-dose CT at CTDIvol 0.14 mGy. Standard CTs were reconstructed using the FBP method while low-dose CTs were reconstructed using FBP and VEO. Two senior radiologists evaluated diagnostic image quality independently by scoring anatomical structures using a four-point scale (1 = excellent, 2 = clear, 3 = diminished, 4 = non-diagnostic). Standard deviation (SD) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were also computed. RESULTS: At moderately reduced doses, VEO images had significantly lower SD (P < 0.001) and higher SNR (P < 0.05) in comparison to filtered back-projection images. Further improvements were obtained at minimum-dose CT. The best diagnostic image quality was obtained with VEO at minimum-dose CT for the small structures (subpleural vessels and lung fissures) (P < 0.001). The potential for dose reduction was dependent on the diagnostic task because of the modification of the image texture produced by this reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: At minimum-dose CT, VEO enables important dose reduction depending on the clinical indication and makes visible certain small structures that were not perceptible with filtered back-projection.
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: Frédéric A Miéville; François Gudinchet; Francis Brunelle; François O Bochud; Francis R Verdun Journal: Phys Med Date: 2012-01-02 Impact factor: 2.685
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: Adam S Wang; J Webster Stayman; Yoshito Otake; Sebastian Vogt; Gerhard Kleinszig; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Fiachra Moloney; Karl James; Maria Twomey; David Ryan; Tyler M Grey; Amber Downes; Richard G Kavanagh; Niamh Moore; Mary Jane Murphy; Jackie Bye; Brian W Carey; Sean E McSweeney; Conor Deasy; Emmett Andrews; Fergus Shanahan; Michael M Maher; Owen J O'Connor Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2018-11-17
Authors: Javier E Villanueva-Meyer; David M Naeger; Jesse L Courtier; Michael D Hope; Jack W Lambert; John D MacKenzie; Andrew S Phelps Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2017-03-14
Authors: Helena Ferris; Maria Twomey; Fiachra Moloney; Siobhan B O'Neill; Kevin Murphy; Owen J O'Connor; Michael Maher Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2016-04-28