OBJECTIVES: To evaluate both in vivo and in phantom studies, dose reduction, and image quality of body CT reconstructed with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR), performed during patient follow-ups for lymphoma. METHODS: This study included 40 patients (mean age 49 years) with lymphoma. All underwent reduced-dose CT during follow-up, reconstructed using MBIR or 50 % advanced statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR). All had previously undergone a standard dose CT with filtered back projection (FBP) reconstruction. The volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), the density measures in liver, spleen, fat, air, and muscle, and the image quality (noise and signal to noise ratio, SNR) (ANOVA) observed using standard or reduced-dose CT were compared both in patients and a phantom study (Catphan 600) (Kruskal Wallis). RESULTS: The CTDIvol was decreased on reduced-dose body CT (4.06 mGy vs. 15.64 mGy p < 0.0001). SNR was higher in reduced-dose CT reconstructed with MBIR than in 50 % ASIR or than standard dose CT with FBP (patients, p ≤ 0.01; phantoms, p = 0.003). Low contrast detectability and spatial resolution in phantoms were not altered on MBIR-reconstructed CT (p ≥ 0.11). CONCLUSION: Reduced-dose CT with MBIR reconstruction can decrease radiation dose delivered to patients with lymphoma, while keeping an image quality similar to that obtained on standard-dose CT. KEY POINTS: • In lymphoma patients, CT dose reduction is a major concern. • Reduced-dose body CT provides a fourfold radiation dose reduction. • Optimized CT reconstruction techniques (MBIR) can maintain image quality.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate both in vivo and in phantom studies, dose reduction, and image quality of body CT reconstructed with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR), performed during patient follow-ups for lymphoma. METHODS: This study included 40 patients (mean age 49 years) with lymphoma. All underwent reduced-dose CT during follow-up, reconstructed using MBIR or 50 % advanced statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR). All had previously undergone a standard dose CT with filtered back projection (FBP) reconstruction. The volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), the density measures in liver, spleen, fat, air, and muscle, and the image quality (noise and signal to noise ratio, SNR) (ANOVA) observed using standard or reduced-dose CT were compared both in patients and a phantom study (Catphan 600) (Kruskal Wallis). RESULTS: The CTDIvol was decreased on reduced-dose body CT (4.06 mGy vs. 15.64 mGy p < 0.0001). SNR was higher in reduced-dose CT reconstructed with MBIR than in 50 % ASIR or than standard dose CT with FBP (patients, p ≤ 0.01; phantoms, p = 0.003). Low contrast detectability and spatial resolution in phantoms were not altered on MBIR-reconstructed CT (p ≥ 0.11). CONCLUSION: Reduced-dose CT with MBIR reconstruction can decrease radiation dose delivered to patients with lymphoma, while keeping an image quality similar to that obtained on standard-dose CT. KEY POINTS: • In lymphomapatients, CT dose reduction is a major concern. • Reduced-dose body CT provides a fourfold radiation dose reduction. • Optimized CT reconstruction techniques (MBIR) can maintain image quality.
Authors: H Tilly; U Vitolo; J Walewski; M Gomes da Silva; O Shpilberg; M André; M Pfreundschuh; M Dreyling Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Bruce D Cheson; Beate Pfistner; Malik E Juweid; Randy D Gascoyne; Lena Specht; Sandra J Horning; Bertrand Coiffier; Richard I Fisher; Anton Hagenbeek; Emanuele Zucca; Steven T Rosen; Sigrid Stroobants; T Andrew Lister; Richard T Hoppe; Martin Dreyling; Kensei Tobinai; Julie M Vose; Joseph M Connors; Massimo Federico; Volker Diehl Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-01-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bruce D Cheson; Richard I Fisher; Sally F Barrington; Franco Cavalli; Lawrence H Schwartz; Emanuele Zucca; T Andrew Lister Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
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: 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
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
Authors: Fiachra Moloney; Karl James; Maria Twomey; David Ryan; Tyler M Grey; Amber Downes; Richard G Kavanagh; Niamh Moore; Mary Jane Murphy; Jackie Bye; Brian W Carey; Sean E McSweeney; Conor Deasy; Emmett Andrews; Fergus Shanahan; Michael M Maher; Owen J O'Connor Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2018-11-17
Authors: Sean Tenant; Chun Lap Pang; Prageeth Dissanayake; Varut Vardhanabhuti; Colin Stuckey; Catherine Gutteridge; Christopher Hyde; Carl Roobottom Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Q Q Ni; G Z Chen; U J Schoepf; M A J Klitsie; C N De Cecco; C S Zhou; S Luo; G M Lu; L J Zhang Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Oliver S Grosser; Christian Wybranski; Dennis Kupitz; Maciej Powerski; Konrad Mohnike; Maciej Pech; Holger Amthauer; Jens Ricke Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 5.315