OBJECTIVE: To compare image quality of different reconstruction techniques in submillisievert ultralow-dose CT colonography (CTC) and to correlate colonic findings with subsequent optical colonoscopy. METHODS: 58 patients underwent ultralow-dose CTC. The images were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP), hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) or model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) techniques. In each segment, endoluminal noise (expressed as standard deviation of endoluminal density) was measured and image quality was rated on a five-point Likert scale by two independent readers. Colonic lesions were evaluated in consensus and correlated with subsequent optical colonoscopy where possible. RESULTS: The estimated radiation dose was 0.41 ± 0.05 mSv for the supine and 0.42 ± 0.04 mSv for the prone acquisitions. In the endoluminal view, the image quality was rated better in HIR, whereas better scores were obtained in MBIR in the cross-sectional view, where the endoluminal noise was the lowest (p < 0.0001). Five (26%) polyps were not identified using both computer-aided detection and endoluminal inspection in FBP images vs only one (5%) in MBIR and none in HIR images. CONCLUSION: This study showed that in submillisievert ultralow-dose CTC, the image quality for the endoluminal view is better when HIR is used, whereas MBIR yields superior images for the cross-sectional view. The inferior quality of images reconstructed with FBP may result in decreased detection of colonic lesions. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Radiation dose from CTC can be safely reduced <1 mSv for both positions when iterative reconstruction is used. MBIR provides better image quality in the cross-sectional view and HIR in the endoluminal view.
OBJECTIVE: To compare image quality of different reconstruction techniques in submillisievert ultralow-dose CT colonography (CTC) and to correlate colonic findings with subsequent optical colonoscopy. METHODS: 58 patients underwent ultralow-dose CTC. The images were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP), hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) or model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) techniques. In each segment, endoluminal noise (expressed as standard deviation of endoluminal density) was measured and image quality was rated on a five-point Likert scale by two independent readers. Colonic lesions were evaluated in consensus and correlated with subsequent optical colonoscopy where possible. RESULTS: The estimated radiation dose was 0.41 ± 0.05 mSv for the supine and 0.42 ± 0.04 mSv for the prone acquisitions. In the endoluminal view, the image quality was rated better in HIR, whereas better scores were obtained in MBIR in the cross-sectional view, where the endoluminal noise was the lowest (p < 0.0001). Five (26%) polyps were not identified using both computer-aided detection and endoluminal inspection in FBP images vs only one (5%) in MBIR and none in HIR images. CONCLUSION: This study showed that in submillisievert ultralow-dose CTC, the image quality for the endoluminal view is better when HIR is used, whereas MBIR yields superior images for the cross-sectional view. The inferior quality of images reconstructed with FBP may result in decreased detection of colonic lesions. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Radiation dose from CTC can be safely reduced <1 mSv for both positions when iterative reconstruction is used. MBIR provides better image quality in the cross-sectional view and HIR in the endoluminal view.
Authors: Amy Berrington de González; Kwang Pyo Kim; Amy B Knudsen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Carolyn M Rutter; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Judy Yee; Karen M Kuntz; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ann G Zauber; Christine D Berg Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Michael E Zalis; Matthew A Barish; J Richard Choi; Abraham H Dachman; Helen M Fenlon; Joseph T Ferrucci; Seth N Glick; Andrea Laghi; Michael Macari; Elizabeth G McFarland; Martina M Morrin; Perry J Pickhardt; Jorge Soto; Judy Yee Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C Daniel Johnson; Mei-Hsiu Chen; Alicia Y Toledano; Jay P Heiken; Abraham Dachman; Mark D Kuo; Christine O Menias; Betina Siewert; Jugesh I Cheema; Richard G Obregon; Jeff L Fidler; Peter Zimmerman; Karen M Horton; Kevin Coakley; Revathy B Iyer; Amy K Hara; Robert A Halvorsen; Giovanna Casola; Judy Yee; Benjamin A Herman; Lawrence J Burgart; Paul J Limburg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Claudia Miller; Daniel Mittelstaedt; Noel Black; Paul Klahr; Siamak Nejad-Davarani; Heinrich Schulz; Liran Goshen; Xiaoxia Han; Ahmed I Ghanem; Eric D Morris; Carri Glide-Hurst Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Lukas Lambert; Petr Ourednicek; Jan Briza; Walter Giepmans; Jiri Jahoda; Lukas Hruska; Jan Danes Journal: PeerJ Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 2.984