AIM: To compare the computed tomography (CT) dose and image quality with the filtered back projection against the iterative reconstruction and CT with a minimal electronic noise detector. METHODS: A lung phantom (Chest Phantom N1 by Kyoto Kagaku) was scanned with 3 different CT scanners: the Somatom Sensation, the Definition Flash and the Definition Edge (all from Siemens, Erlangen, Germany). The scan parameters were identical to the Siemens presetting for THORAX ROUTINE (scan length 35 cm and FOV 33 cm). Nine different exposition levels were examined (reference mAs/peek voltage): 100/120, 100/100, 100/80, 50/120, 50/100, 50/80, 25/120, 25/100 and 25 mAs/80 kVp. Images from the SOMATOM Sensation were reconstructed using classic filtered back projection. Iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE, level 3) was performed for the two other scanners. A Stellar detector was used with the Somatom Definition Edge. The CT doses were represented by the dose length products (DLPs) (mGycm) provided by the scanners. Signal, contrast, noise and subjective image quality were recorded by two different radiologists with 10 and 3 years of experience in chest CT radiology. To determine the average dose reduction between two scanners, the integral of the dose difference was calculated from the lowest to the highest noise level. RESULTS: When using iterative reconstruction (IR) instead of filtered back projection (FBP), the average dose reduction was 30%, 52% and 80% for bone, soft tissue and air, respectively, for the same image quality (P < 0.0001). The recently introduced Stellar detector (Sd) lowered the radiation dose by an additional 27%, 54% and 70% for bone, soft tissue and air, respectively (P < 0.0001). The benefit of dose reduction was larger at lower dose levels. With the same radiation dose, an average of 34% (22%-37%) and 25% (13%-46%) more contrast to noise was achieved by changing from FBP to IR and from IR to Sd, respectively. For the same contrast to noise level, an average of 59% (46%-71%) and 51% (38%-68%) dose reduction was produced for IR and Sd, respectively. For the same subjective image quality, the dose could be reduced by 25% (2%-42%) and 44% (33%-54%) using IR and Sd, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study showed an average dose reduction between 27% and 70% for the new Stellar detector, which is equivalent to using IR instead of FBP.
AIM: To compare the computed tomography (CT) dose and image quality with the filtered back projection against the iterative reconstruction and CT with a minimal electronic noise detector. METHODS: A lung phantom (Chest Phantom N1 by Kyoto Kagaku) was scanned with 3 different CT scanners: the Somatom Sensation, the Definition Flash and the Definition Edge (all from Siemens, Erlangen, Germany). The scan parameters were identical to the Siemens presetting for THORAX ROUTINE (scan length 35 cm and FOV 33 cm). Nine different exposition levels were examined (reference mAs/peek voltage): 100/120, 100/100, 100/80, 50/120, 50/100, 50/80, 25/120, 25/100 and 25 mAs/80 kVp. Images from the SOMATOM Sensation were reconstructed using classic filtered back projection. Iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE, level 3) was performed for the two other scanners. A Stellar detector was used with the Somatom Definition Edge. The CT doses were represented by the dose length products (DLPs) (mGycm) provided by the scanners. Signal, contrast, noise and subjective image quality were recorded by two different radiologists with 10 and 3 years of experience in chest CT radiology. To determine the average dose reduction between two scanners, the integral of the dose difference was calculated from the lowest to the highest noise level. RESULTS: When using iterative reconstruction (IR) instead of filtered back projection (FBP), the average dose reduction was 30%, 52% and 80% for bone, soft tissue and air, respectively, for the same image quality (P < 0.0001). The recently introduced Stellar detector (Sd) lowered the radiation dose by an additional 27%, 54% and 70% for bone, soft tissue and air, respectively (P < 0.0001). The benefit of dose reduction was larger at lower dose levels. With the same radiation dose, an average of 34% (22%-37%) and 25% (13%-46%) more contrast to noise was achieved by changing from FBP to IR and from IR to Sd, respectively. For the same contrast to noise level, an average of 59% (46%-71%) and 51% (38%-68%) dose reduction was produced for IR and Sd, respectively. For the same subjective image quality, the dose could be reduced by 25% (2%-42%) and 44% (33%-54%) using IR and Sd, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study showed an average dose reduction between 27% and 70% for the new Stellar detector, which is equivalent to using IR instead of FBP.
Authors: Andreas Christe; Margaret C Lin; Andrew C Yen; Rich L Hallett; Kingshuk Roychoudhury; Florian Schmitzberger; Dominik Fleischmann; Ann N Leung; Geoffrey D Rubin; Geoffry D Rubin; Peter Vock; Justus E Roos Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2011-08-10 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Thomas L Toth; Bernhard Schmidt; Bryan L Westerman; Hugh T Morgan; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-10-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sebastian T Schindera; Patricia Graca; Michael A Patak; Susanne Abderhalden; Gabriel von Allmen; Peter Vock; Zsolt Szucs-Farkas Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Lukas Ebner; Felix Knobloch; Adrian Huber; Julia Landau; Daniel Ott; Johannes T Heverhagen; Andreas Christe Journal: J Clin Imaging Sci Date: 2014-07-31
Authors: Patricia Leutz-Schmidt; Oliver Weinheimer; Bertram J Jobst; Julien Dinkel; Jürgen Biederer; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Michael U Puderbach; Mark O Wielpütz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 3.240