K L Dobeli1, S J Lewis, S R Meikle, D L Thiele, P C Brennan. 1. Medical Image Optimisation and Perception Group (MIOPeG), Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences Faculty Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Karen_Dobeli@health.qld.gov.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the dose-optimisation potential of a smoothing filtered backprojection (FBP) and a hybrid FBP/iterative algorithm to that of a standard FBP algorithm at three slice thicknesses for hepatic lesion detection with multidetector CT. METHODS: A liver phantom containing a 9.5-mm opacity with a density of 10 HU below background was scanned at 125, 100, 75, 50 and 25 mAs. Data were reconstructed with standard FBP (B), smoothing FBP (A) and hybrid FBP/iterative (iDose(4)) algorithms at 5-, 3- and 1-mm collimation. 10 observers marked opacities using a four-point confidence scale. Jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic figure of merit (FOM), sensitivity and noise were calculated. RESULTS: Compared with the 125-mAs/5-mm setting for each algorithm, significant reductions in FOM (p<0.05) and sensitivity (p<0.05) were found for all three algorithms for all exposures at 1-mm thickness and for all slice thicknesses at 25 mAs, with the exception of the 25-mAs/5-mm setting for the B algorithm. Sensitivity was also significantly reduced for all exposures at 3-mm thickness for the A algorithm (p<0.05). Noise for the A and iDose(4) algorithms was approximately 13% and 21% lower, respectively, than for the B algorithm. CONCLUSION: Superior performance for hepatic lesion detection was not shown with either a smoothing FBP algorithm or a hybrid FBP/iterative algorithm compared with a standard FBP technique, even though noise reduction with thinner slices was demonstrated with the alternative approaches. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Reductions in image noise with non-standard CT algorithms do not necessarily translate to an improvement in low-contrast object detection.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the dose-optimisation potential of a smoothing filtered backprojection (FBP) and a hybrid FBP/iterative algorithm to that of a standard FBP algorithm at three slice thicknesses for hepatic lesion detection with multidetector CT. METHODS: A liver phantom containing a 9.5-mm opacity with a density of 10 HU below background was scanned at 125, 100, 75, 50 and 25 mAs. Data were reconstructed with standard FBP (B), smoothing FBP (A) and hybrid FBP/iterative (iDose(4)) algorithms at 5-, 3- and 1-mm collimation. 10 observers marked opacities using a four-point confidence scale. Jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic figure of merit (FOM), sensitivity and noise were calculated. RESULTS: Compared with the 125-mAs/5-mm setting for each algorithm, significant reductions in FOM (p<0.05) and sensitivity (p<0.05) were found for all three algorithms for all exposures at 1-mm thickness and for all slice thicknesses at 25 mAs, with the exception of the 25-mAs/5-mm setting for the B algorithm. Sensitivity was also significantly reduced for all exposures at 3-mm thickness for the A algorithm (p<0.05). Noise for the A and iDose(4) algorithms was approximately 13% and 21% lower, respectively, than for the B algorithm. CONCLUSION: Superior performance for hepatic lesion detection was not shown with either a smoothing FBP algorithm or a hybrid FBP/iterative algorithm compared with a standard FBP technique, even though noise reduction with thinner slices was demonstrated with the alternative approaches. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Reductions in image noise with non-standard CT algorithms do not necessarily translate to an improvement in low-contrast object detection.
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: Mark E Baker; Frank Dong; Andrew Primak; Nancy A Obuchowski; David Einstein; Namita Gandhi; Brian R Herts; Andrei Purysko; Erick Remer; Neil Vachhani; Neil Vachani Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-07 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: Amina Abdelmoumene; Patrick Chevallier; Marc Chalaron; Frédéric Schneider; Francis R Verdun; Phillipe Frascarolo; Reto Meuli; Pierre Schnyder; Alban Denys Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-05-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kristin Jensen; Anne Catrine T Martinsen; Anders Tingberg; Trond Mogens Aaløkken; Erik Fosse Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: F D Raslau; E J Escott; J Smiley; C Adams; D Feigal; H Ganesh; C Wang; J Zhang Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: B Dustin Pooler; Meghan G Lubner; David H Kim; Oliver T Chen; Ke Li; Guang-Hong Chen; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-09-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Joel G Fletcher; Jeff L Fidler; Sudhakar K Venkatesh; David M Hough; Naoki Takahashi; Lifeng Yu; Matthew Johnson; Shuai Leng; David R Holmes; Rickey Carter; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-09-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Michael Scharf; Stephanie Brendel; Katja Melzer; Christian Hentschke; Matthias May; Michael Uder; Michael M Lell Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 3.240