OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate lesion conspicuity achieved with five different iterative reconstruction techniques from four CT vendors at three different dose levels. Comparisons were made of iterative algorithm and filtered back projection (FBP) among and within systems. METHODS: An anthropomorphic liver phantom was examined with four CT systems, each from a different vendor. CTDIvol levels of 5 mGy, 10 mGy and 15 mGy were chosen. Images were reconstructed with FBP and the iterative algorithm on the system. Images were interpreted independently by four observers, and the areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) were calculated. Noise and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) were measured. RESULTS: One iterative algorithm increased AUC (0.79, 0.95, and 0.97) compared to FBP (0.70, 0.86, and 0.93) at all dose levels (p < 0.001 and p = 0.047). Another algorithm increased AUC from 0.78 with FBP to 0.84 (p = 0.007) at 5 mGy. Differences at 10 and 15 mGy were not significant (p-values: 0.084-0.883). Three algorithms showed no difference in AUC compared to FBP (p-values: 0.008-1.000). All of the algorithms decreased noise (10-71%) and improved CNR. CONCLUSIONS: Only two algorithms improved lesion detection, even though noise reduction was shown with all algorithms. KEY POINTS: Iterative reconstruction algorithms affected lesion detection differently at different dose levels. One iterative algorithm improved lesion detectability compared to filtered back projection. Three algorithms did not significantly improve lesion detectability. One algorithm improved lesion detectability at the lowest dose level.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate lesion conspicuity achieved with five different iterative reconstruction techniques from four CT vendors at three different dose levels. Comparisons were made of iterative algorithm and filtered back projection (FBP) among and within systems. METHODS: An anthropomorphic liver phantom was examined with four CT systems, each from a different vendor. CTDIvol levels of 5 mGy, 10 mGy and 15 mGy were chosen. Images were reconstructed with FBP and the iterative algorithm on the system. Images were interpreted independently by four observers, and the areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) were calculated. Noise and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) were measured. RESULTS: One iterative algorithm increased AUC (0.79, 0.95, and 0.97) compared to FBP (0.70, 0.86, and 0.93) at all dose levels (p < 0.001 and p = 0.047). Another algorithm increased AUC from 0.78 with FBP to 0.84 (p = 0.007) at 5 mGy. Differences at 10 and 15 mGy were not significant (p-values: 0.084-0.883). Three algorithms showed no difference in AUC compared to FBP (p-values: 0.008-1.000). All of the algorithms decreased noise (10-71%) and improved CNR. CONCLUSIONS: Only two algorithms improved lesion detection, even though noise reduction was shown with all algorithms. KEY POINTS: Iterative reconstruction algorithms affected lesion detection differently at different dose levels. One iterative algorithm improved lesion detectability compared to filtered back projection. Three algorithms did not significantly improve lesion detectability. One algorithm improved lesion detectability at the lowest dose level.
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: 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: 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: 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: 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