PURPOSE: The authors sought to evaluate the effect of model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) on the sensitivity of ground-glass nodule (GGN) detection at different dose levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-four artificial GGN were randomly divided into three sets, each positioned in an anthropomorphic phantom. The three sets were evaluated on standard-dose (SD, 350 mA), low-dose (LD, 35 mA) and ultra-low-dose (ULD, 10 mA) CT scans (100 kV, 64 × 0.625 mm, 0.5 s), and each scan was reconstructed twice with filtered back projection (FBP) and MBIR. Three radiologists independently evaluated the scans for GGN presence and size. SD + FBP was considered the reference standard. A region of interest (ROI) was used to calculate signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio normalised to dose (CNRD). McNemar's test, Bland-Altman analysis and t test were used for statistical assessment (p < 0.05). RESULTS: The mean diameter of the 54 GGNs was 9.2 mm (range 3.7-17.3 mm). For the three readers, no statistically significant differences were observed in the sensitivity of GGN detection between LD + MBIR, ULD + MBIR and SD + FBP (p > 0.05). Bland-Altman analysis showed a good reader agreement (±1.5 mm) for GGN size between SD + FBP and ULD + MBIR. For low dose and ultra-low dose, the SNR and CNRD were significantly higher with MBIR (p < 0.0001). The effective dose was 97.1 % lower with ultra-low dose (0.15 mSv) than standard dose (5.15 mSv). CONCLUSIONS: The detection of GGN with MBIR at low-dose and ultra-low-dose CT does not differ significantly from standard-dose CT with FBP in an anthropomorphic phantom.
PURPOSE: The authors sought to evaluate the effect of model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) on the sensitivity of ground-glass nodule (GGN) detection at different dose levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-four artificial GGN were randomly divided into three sets, each positioned in an anthropomorphic phantom. The three sets were evaluated on standard-dose (SD, 350 mA), low-dose (LD, 35 mA) and ultra-low-dose (ULD, 10 mA) CT scans (100 kV, 64 × 0.625 mm, 0.5 s), and each scan was reconstructed twice with filtered back projection (FBP) and MBIR. Three radiologists independently evaluated the scans for GGN presence and size. SD + FBP was considered the reference standard. A region of interest (ROI) was used to calculate signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio normalised to dose (CNRD). McNemar's test, Bland-Altman analysis and t test were used for statistical assessment (p < 0.05). RESULTS: The mean diameter of the 54 GGNs was 9.2 mm (range 3.7-17.3 mm). For the three readers, no statistically significant differences were observed in the sensitivity of GGN detection between LD + MBIR, ULD + MBIR and SD + FBP (p > 0.05). Bland-Altman analysis showed a good reader agreement (±1.5 mm) for GGN size between SD + FBP and ULD + MBIR. For low dose and ultra-low dose, the SNR and CNRD were significantly higher with MBIR (p < 0.0001). The effective dose was 97.1 % lower with ultra-low dose (0.15 mSv) than standard dose (5.15 mSv). CONCLUSIONS: The detection of GGN with MBIR at low-dose and ultra-low-dose CT does not differ significantly from standard-dose CT with FBP in an anthropomorphic phantom.
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: Michael Macari; Edmund J Bini; Xiaonan Xue; Andrew Milano; Seth S Katz; Daniel Resnick; Hersh Chandarana; Glen Krinsky; Klaus Klingenbeck; Christopher H Marshall; Alec J Megibow Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Joel G Fletcher; David L Levin; Anne-Marie G Sykes; Rebecca M Lindell; Darin B White; Ronald S Kuzo; Vighnesh Suresh; Lifeng Yu; Shuai Leng; David R Holmes; Akitoshi Inoue; Matthew P Johnson; Rickey E Carter; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Guilherme Giacomini; José R A Miranda; Ana Luiza M Pavan; Sérgio B Duarte; Sérgio M Ribeiro; Paulo C M Pereira; Allan F F Alves; Marcela de Oliveira; Diana R Pina Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Michael Paks; Paul Leong; Paul Einsiedel; Louis B Irving; Daniel P Steinfort; Diane M Pascoe Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 1.817