Young Jin Ryu1,2, Young Hun Choi3,4, Jung-Eun Cheon1,2,5, Seongmin Ha6, Woo Sun Kim1,2,5, In-One Kim1,2,5. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Korea. iater@snu.ac.kr. 4. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. iater@snu.ac.kr. 5. Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Korea. 6. Dalio Institute of Cardiovascular Imaging, New York-Presbyterian Hospital and the Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: CT of pediatric phantoms can provide useful guidance to the optimization of knowledge-based iterative reconstruction CT. OBJECTIVE: To compare radiation dose and image quality of CT images obtained at different radiation doses reconstructed with knowledge-based iterative reconstruction, hybrid iterative reconstruction and filtered back-projection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We scanned a 5-year anthropomorphic phantom at seven levels of radiation. We then reconstructed CT data with knowledge-based iterative reconstruction (iterative model reconstruction [IMR] levels 1, 2 and 3; Philips Healthcare, Andover, MA), hybrid iterative reconstruction (iDose(4), levels 3 and 7; Philips Healthcare, Andover, MA) and filtered back-projection. The noise, signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were calculated. We evaluated low-contrast resolutions and detectability by low-contrast targets and subjective and objective spatial resolutions by the line pairs and wire. RESULTS: With radiation at 100 peak kVp and 100 mAs (3.64 mSv), the relative doses ranged from 5% (0.19 mSv) to 150% (5.46 mSv). Lower noise and higher signal-to-noise, contrast-to-noise and objective spatial resolution were generally achieved in ascending order of filtered back-projection, iDose(4) levels 3 and 7, and IMR levels 1, 2 and 3, at all radiation dose levels. Compared with filtered back-projection at 100% dose, similar noise levels were obtained on IMR level 2 images at 24% dose and iDose(4) level 3 images at 50% dose, respectively. Regarding low-contrast resolution, low-contrast detectability and objective spatial resolution, IMR level 2 images at 24% dose showed comparable image quality with filtered back-projection at 100% dose. Subjective spatial resolution was not greatly affected by reconstruction algorithm. CONCLUSION: Reduced-dose IMR obtained at 0.92 mSv (24%) showed similar image quality to routine-dose filtered back-projection obtained at 3.64 mSv (100%), and half-dose iDose(4) obtained at 1.81 mSv.
BACKGROUND: CT of pediatric phantoms can provide useful guidance to the optimization of knowledge-based iterative reconstruction CT. OBJECTIVE: To compare radiation dose and image quality of CT images obtained at different radiation doses reconstructed with knowledge-based iterative reconstruction, hybrid iterative reconstruction and filtered back-projection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We scanned a 5-year anthropomorphic phantom at seven levels of radiation. We then reconstructed CT data with knowledge-based iterative reconstruction (iterative model reconstruction [IMR] levels 1, 2 and 3; Philips Healthcare, Andover, MA), hybrid iterative reconstruction (iDose(4), levels 3 and 7; Philips Healthcare, Andover, MA) and filtered back-projection. The noise, signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were calculated. We evaluated low-contrast resolutions and detectability by low-contrast targets and subjective and objective spatial resolutions by the line pairs and wire. RESULTS: With radiation at 100 peak kVp and 100 mAs (3.64 mSv), the relative doses ranged from 5% (0.19 mSv) to 150% (5.46 mSv). Lower noise and higher signal-to-noise, contrast-to-noise and objective spatial resolution were generally achieved in ascending order of filtered back-projection, iDose(4) levels 3 and 7, and IMR levels 1, 2 and 3, at all radiation dose levels. Compared with filtered back-projection at 100% dose, similar noise levels were obtained on IMR level 2 images at 24% dose and iDose(4) level 3 images at 50% dose, respectively. Regarding low-contrast resolution, low-contrast detectability and objective spatial resolution, IMR level 2 images at 24% dose showed comparable image quality with filtered back-projection at 100% dose. Subjective spatial resolution was not greatly affected by reconstruction algorithm. CONCLUSION: Reduced-dose IMR obtained at 0.92 mSv (24%) showed similar image quality to routine-dose filtered back-projection obtained at 3.64 mSv (100%), and half-dose iDose(4) obtained at 1.81 mSv.
Authors: D B Husarik; H Alkadhi; G D Puippe; C S Reiner; N C Chuck; F Morsbach; Z Szucs-Farkas; S T Schindera Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2014-12-29 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Manuel Patino; Jorge M Fuentes; Koichi Hayano; Avinash R Kambadakone; Jennifer W Uyeda; Dushyant V Sahani Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Marilyn J Goske; Keith J Strauss; Laura P Coombs; Keith E Mandel; Alexander J Towbin; David B Larson; Michael J Callahan; Kassa Darge; Daniel J Podberesky; Donald P Frush; Sjirk J Westra; Jeffrey S Prince Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-03-19 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: R H H Wellenberg; M F Boomsma; J A C van Osch; A Vlassenbroek; J Milles; M A Edens; G J Streekstra; C H Slump; M Maas Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Woo Hyeon Lim; Young Hun Choi; Ji Eun Park; Yeon Jin Cho; Seunghyun Lee; Jung Eun Cheon; Woo Sun Kim; In One Kim; Jong Hyo Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 3.500