Literature DB >> 25615778

A quantitative comparison of noise reduction across five commercial (hybrid and model-based) iterative reconstruction techniques: an anthropomorphic phantom study.

Manuel Patino1, Jorge M Fuentes, Koichi Hayano, Avinash R Kambadakone, Jennifer W Uyeda, Dushyant V Sahani.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to compare the performance of three hybrid iterative reconstruction techniques (IRTs) (ASiR, iDose4, SAFIRE) and their respective strengths for image noise reduction on low-dose CT examinations using filtered back projection (FBP) as the standard reference. Also, we compared the performance of these three hybrid IRTs with two model-based IRTs (Veo and IMR) for image noise reduction on low-dose examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS. An anthropomorphic abdomen phantom was scanned at 100 and 120 kVp and different tube current-exposure time products (25-100 mAs) on three CT systems (for ASiR and Veo, Discovery CT750 HD; for iDose4 and IMR, Brilliance iCT; and for SAFIRE, Somatom Definition Flash). Images were reconstructed using FBP and using IRTs at various strengths. Nine noise measurements (mean ROI size, 423 mm(2)) on extracolonic fat for the different strengths of IRTs were recorded and compared with FBP using ANOVA. Radiation dose, which was measured as the volume CT dose index and dose-length product, was also compared. RESULTS. There were no significant differences in radiation dose and image noise among the scanners when FBP was used (p > 0.05). Gradual image noise reduction was observed with each increasing increment of hybrid IRT strength, with a maximum noise suppression of approximately 50% (48.2-53.9%). Similar noise reduction was achieved on the scanners by applying specific hybrid IRT strengths. Maximum noise reduction was higher on model-based IRTs (68.3-81.1%) than hybrid IRTs (48.2-53.9%) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION. When constant scanning parameters are used, radiation dose and image noise on FBP are similar for CT scanners made by different manufacturers. Significant image noise reduction is achieved on low-dose CT examinations rendered with IRTs. The image noise on various scanners can be matched by applying specific hybrid IRT strengths. Model-based IRTs attain substantially higher noise reduction than hybrid IRTs irrespective of the radiation dose.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CT; filtered back projection; iterative reconstruction technique; phantom studies; radiation dose

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25615778     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.12519

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  13 in total

1.  Knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction: comparative image quality and radiation dose with a pediatric computed tomography phantom.

Authors:  Young Jin Ryu; Young Hun Choi; Jung-Eun Cheon; Seongmin Ha; Woo Sun Kim; In-One Kim
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2015-11-06

2.  Impact of model-based iterative reconstruction on low-contrast lesion detection and image quality in abdominal CT: a 12-reader-based comparative phantom study with filtered back projection at different tube voltages.

Authors:  André Euler; Bram Stieltjes; Zsolt Szucs-Farkas; Reto Eichenberger; Clemens Reisinger; Anna Hirschmann; Caroline Zaehringer; Achim Kircher; Matthias Streif; Sabine Bucher; David Buergler; Luigia D'Errico; Sebastién Kopp; Markus Wilhelm; Sebastian T Schindera
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-04-03       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Emergency assessment of patients with acute abdominal pain using low-dose CT with iterative reconstruction: a comparative study.

Authors:  Pierre-Alexandre Poletti; Minerva Becker; Christoph D Becker; Alice Halfon Poletti; Olivier T Rutschmann; Habib Zaidi; Thomas Perneger; Alexandra Platon
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Image Quality Required for the Diagnosis of Skull Fractures Using Head CT: A Comparison of Conventional and Improved Reconstruction Kernels.

Authors:  S Takagi; M Koyama; K Hayashi; T Kawauchi
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2016-07-14       Impact factor: 3.825

5.  Diagnostic performance of reduced-dose CT with a hybrid iterative reconstruction algorithm for the detection of hypervascular liver lesions: a phantom study.

Authors:  Atsushi Nakamoto; Yoshikazu Tanaka; Hiroshi Juri; Go Nakai; Shushi Yoshikawa; Yoshifumi Narumi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-12-12       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  CT iterative reconstruction algorithms: a task-based image quality assessment.

Authors:  J Greffier; J Frandon; A Larbi; J P Beregi; F Pereira
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-07-29       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Low kilovoltage peak (kVp) with an adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm in computed tomography urography: evaluation of image quality and radiation dose.

Authors:  Zhiguo Zhou; Haixi Chen; Wei Wei; Shanghui Zhou; Jingbo Xu; Xifu Wang; Qingguo Wang; Guixiang Zhang; Zhuoli Zhang; Linfeng Zheng
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 4.060

8.  Direct Reconstruction of CT-based Attenuation Correction Images for PET with Cluster-Based Penalties.

Authors:  Soo Mee Kim; Adam M Alessio; Bruno De Man; Paul E Kinahan
Journal:  IEEE Trans Nucl Sci       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 1.679

9.  Ultra-low-dose multiphase CT angiography derived from CT perfusion data in patients with middle cerebral artery stenosis.

Authors:  Xiaoling Wu; Yuelong Yang; Menghuang Wen; Lijuan Wang; Yunjun Yang; Yuhu Zhang; Zihua Mo; Kun Nie; Biao Huang
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2019-10-30       Impact factor: 2.804

10.  Tradeoff between noise reduction and inartificial visualization in a model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm on coronary computed tomography angiography.

Authors:  Kenichiro Hirata; Daisuke Utsunomiya; Masafumi Kidoh; Yoshinori Funama; Seitaro Oda; Hideaki Yuki; Yasunori Nagayama; Yuji Iyama; Takeshi Nakaura; Daisuke Sakabe; Kenichi Tsujita; Yasuyuki Yamashita
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 1.889

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.