Se Y Choi1,2, Seung H Ahn3, Jae D Choi3, Jung H Kim3, Byoung-Il Lee4, Jeong-In Kim4, Sung B Park5. 1. 1 Department of Urology, The Armed Forces Il-Dong Hospital, Pocheon, Republic of Korea. 2. 2 Department of Urology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. 3 Department of Urology, KEPCO Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. 4 Radiation Health Research Institute, Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 5. 5 Department of Radiology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare CT image quality for evaluating urolithiasis using filtered back projection (FBP), statistical iterative reconstruction (IR) and knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction (IMR) according to various scan parameters and radiation doses. METHODS: A 5 × 5 × 5 mm(3) uric acid stone was placed in a physical human phantom at the level of the pelvis. 3 tube voltages (120, 100 and 80 kV) and 4 current-time products (100, 70, 30 and 15 mAs) were implemented in 12 scans. Each scan was reconstructed with FBP, statistical IR (Levels 5-7) and knowledge-based IMR (soft-tissue Levels 1-3). The radiation dose, objective image quality and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were evaluated, and subjective assessments were performed. RESULTS: The effective doses ranged from 0.095 to 2.621 mSv. Knowledge-based IMR showed better objective image noise and SNR than did FBP and statistical IR. The subjective image noise of FBP was worse than that of statistical IR and knowledge-based IMR. The subjective assessment scores deteriorated after a break point of 100 kV and 30 mAs. CONCLUSION: At the setting of 100 kV and 30 mAs, the radiation dose can be decreased by approximately 84% while keeping the subjective image assessment. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Patients with urolithiasis can be evaluated with ultralow-dose non-enhanced CT using a knowledge-based IMR algorithm at a substantially reduced radiation dose with the imaging quality preserved, thereby minimizing the risks of radiation exposure while providing clinically relevant diagnostic benefits for patients.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare CT image quality for evaluating urolithiasis using filtered back projection (FBP), statistical iterative reconstruction (IR) and knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction (IMR) according to various scan parameters and radiation doses. METHODS: A 5 × 5 × 5 mm(3) uric acid stone was placed in a physical human phantom at the level of the pelvis. 3 tube voltages (120, 100 and 80 kV) and 4 current-time products (100, 70, 30 and 15 mAs) were implemented in 12 scans. Each scan was reconstructed with FBP, statistical IR (Levels 5-7) and knowledge-based IMR (soft-tissue Levels 1-3). The radiation dose, objective image quality and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were evaluated, and subjective assessments were performed. RESULTS: The effective doses ranged from 0.095 to 2.621 mSv. Knowledge-based IMR showed better objective image noise and SNR than did FBP and statistical IR. The subjective image noise of FBP was worse than that of statistical IR and knowledge-based IMR. The subjective assessment scores deteriorated after a break point of 100 kV and 30 mAs. CONCLUSION: At the setting of 100 kV and 30 mAs, the radiation dose can be decreased by approximately 84% while keeping the subjective image assessment. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Patients with urolithiasis can be evaluated with ultralow-dose non-enhanced CT using a knowledge-based IMR algorithm at a substantially reduced radiation dose with the imaging quality preserved, thereby minimizing the risks of radiation exposure while providing clinically relevant diagnostic benefits for patients.
Authors: Priyanka Prakash; Mannudeep K Kalra; Jeanne B Ackman; Subba R Digumarthy; Jiang Hsieh; Synho Do; Jo-Anne O Shepard; Matthew D Gilman Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jan Hansmann; Gita M Schoenberg; Gunnar Brix; Thomas Henzler; Mathias Meyer; Ulrike I Attenberger; Stefan O Schoenberg; Christian Fink Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Gabrielle C Colleran; Michael J Callahan; Harriet J Paltiel; Caleb P Nelson; Bartley G Cilento; Michelle A Baum; Jeanne S Chow Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2016-11-04
Authors: Byung Hoon Chi; In Ho Chang; Dong Hoon Lee; Sung Bin Park; Kyung Do Kim; Young Tae Moon; Taekyu Hur Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 2.759
Authors: Bo Mussmann; Maryann Hardy; Helene Jung; Ming Ding; Palle J Osther; Maja Lynge Fransen; Pernille Wied Greisen; Ole Graumann Journal: J Med Radiat Sci Date: 2021-06-22