Literature DB >> 26843232

Can conclusions drawn from phantom-based image noise assessments be generalized to in vivo studies for the nonlinear model-based iterative reconstruction method?

Daniel Gomez-Cardona1, Ke Li2, Jiang Hsieh3, Meghan G Lubner4, Perry J Pickhardt4, Guang-Hong Chen2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Phantom-based objective image quality assessment methods are widely used in the medical physics community. For a filtered backprojection (FBP) reconstruction-based linear or quasilinear imaging system, the use of this methodology is well justified. Many key image quality metrics acquired with phantom studies can be directly applied to in vivo human subject studies. Recently, a variety of image quality metrics have been investigated for model-based iterative image reconstruction (MBIR) methods and several novel characteristics have been discovered in phantom studies. However, the following question remains unanswered: can certain results obtained from phantom studies be generalized to in vivo animal studies and human subject studies? The purpose of this paper is to address this question.
METHODS: One of the most striking results obtained from phantom studies is a novel power-law relationship between noise variance of MBIR (σ(2)) and tube current-rotation time product (mAs): σ(2) ∝ (mAs)(-0.4) [K. Li et al., "Statistical model based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) in clinical CT systems: Experimental assessment of noise performance," Med. Phys. 41, 041906 (15pp.) (2014)]. To examine whether the same power-law works for in vivo cases, experimental data from two types of in vivo studies were analyzed in this paper. All scans were performed with a 64-slice diagnostic CT scanner (Discovery CT750 HD, GE Healthcare) and reconstructed with both FBP and a MBIR method (Veo, GE Healthcare). An Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee-approved in vivo animal study was performed with an adult swine at six mAs levels (10-290). Additionally, human subject data (a total of 110 subjects) acquired from an IRB-approved clinical trial were analyzed. In this clinical trial, a reduced-mAs scan was performed immediately following the standard mAs scan; the specific mAs used for the two scans varied across human subjects and were determined based on patient size and clinical indications. The measurements of σ(2) were performed at different mAs by drawing regions-of-interest (ROIs) in the liver and the subcutaneous fat. By applying a linear least-squares regression, the β values in the power-law relationship σ(2) ∝ (mAs)(-β) were measured for the in vivo data and compared with the value found in phantom experiments.
RESULTS: For the in vivo swine study, an exponent of β = 0.43 was found for MBIR, and the coefficient of determination (R(2)) for the corresponding least-squares power-law regression was 0.971. As a reference, the β and R(2) values for FBP were found to be 0.98 and 0.997, respectively, from the same study, which are consistent with the well-known σ(2) ∝ (mAs)(-1.0) relationship for linear CT systems. For the human subject study, the measured β values for the MBIR images were 0.41 ± 0.12 in the liver and 0.37 ± 0.12 in subcutaneous fat. In comparison, the β values for the FBP images were 1.04 ± 0.10 in the liver and 0.97 ± 0.12 in subcutaneous fat. The β values of MBIR and FBP obtained from the in vivo studies were found to be statistically equivalent to the corresponding β values from the phantom study within an equivalency interval of [ - 0.1, 0.1] (p < 0.05); across MBIR and FBP, the difference in β was statistically significant (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the nonlinear nature of the MBIR method, the power-law relationship, σ(2) ∝ (mAs)(-0.4), found from phantom studies can be applied to in vivo animal and human subject studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26843232      PMCID: PMC4714998          DOI: 10.1118/1.4939257

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  29 in total

1.  Reduced image noise at low-dose multidetector CT of the abdomen with prior image constrained compressed sensing algorithm.

Authors:  Meghan G Lubner; Perry J Pickhardt; Jie Tang; Guang-Hong Chen
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-03-24       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Quantitative comparison of noise texture across CT scanners from different manufacturers.

Authors:  Justin B Solomon; Olav Christianson; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Towards task-based assessment of CT performance: system and object MTF across different reconstruction algorithms.

Authors:  Samuel Richard; Daniela B Husarik; Girijesh Yadava; Simon N Murphy; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for ultralow-dose chest CT: comparison of pulmonary nodule detectability with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique.

Authors:  Masaki Katsura; Izuru Matsuda; Masaaki Akahane; Koichiro Yasaka; Shohei Hanaoka; Hiroyuki Akai; Jiro Sato; Akira Kunimatsu; Kuni Ohtomo
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 6.016

5.  Power of the two one-sided tests procedure in bioequivalence.

Authors:  K F Phillips
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1990-04

6.  Update on the non-prewhitening model observer in computed tomography for the assessment of the adaptive statistical and model-based iterative reconstruction algorithms.

Authors:  Julien G Ott; Fabio Becce; Pascal Monnin; Sabine Schmidt; François O Bochud; Francis R Verdun
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Abdominal CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; Meghan G Lubner; David H Kim; Jie Tang; Julie A Ruma; Alejandro Muñoz del Rio; Guang-Hong Chen
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Observer Performance in the Detection and Classification of Malignant Hepatic Nodules and Masses with CT Image-Space Denoising and Iterative Reconstruction.

Authors:  Joel G Fletcher; Lifeng Yu; Zhoubo Li; Armando Manduca; Daniel J Blezek; David M Hough; Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Gregory C Brickner; Joseph C Cernigliaro; Amy K Hara; Jeff L Fidler; David S Lake; Maria Shiung; David Lewis; Shuai Leng; Kurt E Augustine; Rickey E Carter; David R Holmes; Cynthia H McCollough
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-05-26       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Model-based iterative reconstruction versus adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection in liver 64-MDCT: focal lesion detection, lesion conspicuity, and image noise.

Authors:  William P Shuman; Doug E Green; Janet M Busey; Orpheus Kolokythas; Lee M Mitsumori; Kent M Koprowicz; Jean-Baptiste Thibault; Jiang Hsieh; Adam M Alessio; Eunice Choi; Paul E Kinahan
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Prediction of human observer performance in a 2-alternative forced choice low-contrast detection task using channelized Hotelling observer: impact of radiation dose and reconstruction algorithms.

Authors:  Lifeng Yu; Shuai Leng; Lingyun Chen; James M Kofler; Rickey E Carter; Cynthia H McCollough
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.071

View more
  2 in total

1.  Impact of bowtie filter and object position on the two-dimensional noise power spectrum of a clinical MDCT system.

Authors:  Daniel Gomez-Cardona; Juan Pablo Cruz-Bastida; Ke Li; Adam Budde; Jiang Hsieh; Guang-Hong Chen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Comparing dual energy CT and subtraction CT on a phantom: which one provides the best contrast in iodine maps for sub-centimetre details?

Authors:  Evelinda Baerends; Luuk J Oostveen; Casper T Smit; Marco Das; Ioannis Sechopoulos; Monique Brink; Frank de Lange; Mathias Prokop
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-05-28       Impact factor: 5.315

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.