Minwook Lee1, Myung-Joon Kim, Kyung Hwa Han, Mi-Jung Lee. 1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Children's Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, 120-752, Seoul, South Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Iterative reconstruction can be helpful to reduce radiation dose while maintaining image quality. However, this technique has not been fully evaluated in children during abdominal CT. OBJECTIVE: To compare objective and subjective image quality between half-dose images reconstructed with iterative reconstruction at iteration strength levels 1 to 5 (half-S1 to half-S5 studies) and full-dose images reconstructed with filtered back projection (full studies) in pediatric abdominal CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one children (M:F = 13:8; mean age 8.2 ± 5.7 years) underwent dual-source abdominal CT (mean effective dose 4.8 ± 2.1 mSv). The objective image quality was evaluated as noise. Subjective image quality analysis was performed comparing each half study to the full study for noise, sharpness, artifact and diagnostic acceptability. RESULTS: Both objective and subjective image noise decreased with increasing iteration strength. Half-S4 and -S5 studies showed objective image noise similar to or lower than that of full studies. The half-S2 and -S3 studies produced the greatest sharpness and the half-S5 studies were the worst from a blocky appearance. Full and half studies did not differ in artifacts. Half-S3 studies showed the best diagnostic acceptability. CONCLUSION: Half-S4 and -S5 studies objectively and half-S3 studies subjectively showed comparable image quality to full studies in pediatric abdominal CT.
BACKGROUND: Iterative reconstruction can be helpful to reduce radiation dose while maintaining image quality. However, this technique has not been fully evaluated in children during abdominal CT. OBJECTIVE: To compare objective and subjective image quality between half-dose images reconstructed with iterative reconstruction at iteration strength levels 1 to 5 (half-S1 to half-S5 studies) and full-dose images reconstructed with filtered back projection (full studies) in pediatric abdominal CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one children (M:F = 13:8; mean age 8.2 ± 5.7 years) underwent dual-source abdominal CT (mean effective dose 4.8 ± 2.1 mSv). The objective image quality was evaluated as noise. Subjective image quality analysis was performed comparing each half study to the full study for noise, sharpness, artifact and diagnostic acceptability. RESULTS: Both objective and subjective image noise decreased with increasing iteration strength. Half-S4 and -S5 studies showed objective image noise similar to or lower than that of full studies. The half-S2 and -S3 studies produced the greatest sharpness and the half-S5 studies were the worst from a blocky appearance. Full and half studies did not differ in artifacts. Half-S3 studies showed the best diagnostic acceptability. CONCLUSION: Half-S4 and -S5 studies objectively and half-S3 studies subjectively showed comparable image quality to full studies in pediatric abdominal CT.
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Mischa Woisetschläger; Nils Dahlström; Sarabjeet Singh; Maria Lindblom; Garry Choy; Petter Quick; Bernhard Schmidt; Martin Sedlmair; Michael A Blake; Anders Persson Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2012 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Francesco Tricarico; Anthony M Hlavacek; U Joseph Schoepf; Ullrich Ebersberger; John W Nance; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Young Jun Cho; J Reid Spears; Francesco Secchi; Giancarlo Savino; Riccardo Marano; Stefan O Schoenberg; Lorenzo Bonomo; Paul Apfaltrer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-12-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Joel G Fletcher; William R Krueger; David M Hough; James E Huprich; Jeff L Fidler; Jia Wang; Maria M Shiung; W Scott Harmsen; Katharine L Grant; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.826
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: Gregory A Vorona; Rafael C Ceschin; Barbara L Clayton; Tom Sutcavage; Sameh S Tadros; Ashok Panigrahy Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2011-05-19
Authors: John D Mathews; Anna V Forsythe; Zoe Brady; Martin W Butler; Stacy K Goergen; Graham B Byrnes; Graham G Giles; Anthony B Wallace; Philip R Anderson; Tenniel A Guiver; Paul McGale; Timothy M Cain; James G Dowty; Adrian C Bickerstaffe; Sarah C Darby Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-05-21