OBJECTIVES: To present the results of a systematic literature search aimed at determining to what extent the radiation dose can be reduced with iterative reconstruction (IR) for cardiopulmonary and body imaging with computed tomography (CT) in the clinical setting and what the effects on image quality are with IR versus filtered back-projection (FBP) and to provide recommendations for future research on IR. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase from January 2006 to January 2012 and included original research papers concerning IR for CT. RESULTS: The systematic search yielded 380 articles. Forty-nine relevant studies were included. These studies concerned: the chest(n = 26), abdomen(n = 16), both chest and abdomen(n = 1), head(n = 4), spine(n = 1), and no specific area (n = 1). IR reduced noise and artefacts, and it improved subjective and objective image quality compared to FBP at the same dose. Conversely, low-dose IR and normal-dose FBP showed similar noise, artefacts, and subjective and objective image quality. Reported dose reductions ranged from 23 to 76 % compared to locally used default FBP settings. However, IR has not yet been investigated for ultra-low-dose acquisitions with clinical diagnosis and accuracy as endpoints. CONCLUSION: Benefits of IR include improved subjective and objective image quality as well as radiation dose reduction while preserving image quality. Future studies need to address the value of IR in ultra-low-dose CT with clinically relevant endpoints. KEY POINTS: • Iterative reconstruction improves image quality of CT images at equal acquisition parameters. • IR preserves image quality compared to normal-dose filtered back-projection. • The reduced radiation dose made possible by IR is advantageous for patients. • IR has not yet been investigated with clinical diagnosis and accuracy as endpoints.
OBJECTIVES: To present the results of a systematic literature search aimed at determining to what extent the radiation dose can be reduced with iterative reconstruction (IR) for cardiopulmonary and body imaging with computed tomography (CT) in the clinical setting and what the effects on image quality are with IR versus filtered back-projection (FBP) and to provide recommendations for future research on IR. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase from January 2006 to January 2012 and included original research papers concerning IR for CT. RESULTS: The systematic search yielded 380 articles. Forty-nine relevant studies were included. These studies concerned: the chest(n = 26), abdomen(n = 16), both chest and abdomen(n = 1), head(n = 4), spine(n = 1), and no specific area (n = 1). IR reduced noise and artefacts, and it improved subjective and objective image quality compared to FBP at the same dose. Conversely, low-dose IR and normal-dose FBP showed similar noise, artefacts, and subjective and objective image quality. Reported dose reductions ranged from 23 to 76 % compared to locally used default FBP settings. However, IR has not yet been investigated for ultra-low-dose acquisitions with clinical diagnosis and accuracy as endpoints. CONCLUSION: Benefits of IR include improved subjective and objective image quality as well as radiation dose reduction while preserving image quality. Future studies need to address the value of IR in ultra-low-dose CT with clinically relevant endpoints. KEY POINTS: • Iterative reconstruction improves image quality of CT images at equal acquisition parameters. • IR preserves image quality compared to normal-dose filtered back-projection. • The reduced radiation dose made possible by IR is advantageous for patients. • IR has not yet been investigated with clinical diagnosis and accuracy as endpoints.
Authors: A Korn; M Fenchel; B Bender; S Danz; T K Hauser; D Ketelsen; T Flohr; C D Claussen; M Heuschmid; U Ernemann; H Brodoefel Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-10-27 Impact factor: 3.825
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: Anne Catrine Trægde Martinsen; Hilde Kjernlie Sæther; Per Kristian Hol; Dag Rune Olsen; Per Skaane Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2011-05-02 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Márcio Sommer Bittencourt; Bernhard Schmidt; Martin Seltmann; Gerd Muschiol; Dieter Ropers; Werner Günther Daniel; Stephan Achenbach Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 2.357
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: Annemarie M Den Harder; Martin J Willemink; Quirina M B De Ruiter; Pim A De Jong; Arnold M R Schilham; Gabriel P Krestin; Tim Leiner; Ricardo P J Budde Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Richard A P Takx; Martin J Willemink; Hendrik M Nathoe; Arnold M R Schilham; Ricardo P J Budde; Pim A de Jong; Tim Leiner Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Thorsten Sellerer; Peter B Noël; Manuel Patino; Anushri Parakh; Sebastian Ehn; Sascha Zeiter; Jasmin A Holz; Johannes Hammel; Alexander A Fingerle; Franz Pfeiffer; David Maintz; Ernst J Rummeny; Daniela Muenzel; Dushyant V Sahani Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 5.315
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: Ahmed Othman; Hussam A Hamou; Rastislav Pjontek; Saif Afat; Hans Clusmann; Martin Wiesmann; Marc A Brockmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Fabian Henry Jürgen Elsholtz; Lars-Arne Schaafs; Christoph Erxleben; Bernd Hamm; Stefan Markus Niehues Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 3.469