Koichiro Yasaka1, Masaki Katsura2, Jiro Sato2, Masaaki Akahane3, Izuru Matsuda4, Kuni Ohtomo2. 1. Department of Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan. koyasaka@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan. 3. Department of Radiology, NTT Medical Center Tokyo, 5-9-22 Higashi-Gotanda, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 141-8625, Japan. 4. Department of Radiology, Kanto Rosai Hospital, 1-1 Kizukisumiyoshi-cho, Nakahara-ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, 211-8510, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare new and conventional versions of model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) in reduced-dose computed tomography (CT) in terms of diagnostic performance for hepatic steatosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Images were reconstructed from standard-dose and aggressively reduced-dose (the dose-length product was reduced by 91 %) unenhanced abdominopelvic CT scans of 86 patients using filtered back projection (SD-FBP) and new and conventional versions of MBIR (RD-MBIRn and RD-MBIRc), respectively. The mean CT attenuation of the liver (CT[L]) and the spleen as well as the ratio of these parameters (CT[L/S]) were calculated. CT[L] <48 Hounsfield units (HU) and CT[L/S] <1.1 were applied to SD-FBP (used as the reference standard; the number of positive patients was 12 and 14, respectively), RD-MBIRn, and RD-MBIRc. RESULTS: CT[L]s in SD-FBP/RD-MBIRn/RD-MBIRc were 56.9/55.9/52.8 HU. The difference in CT[L] between RD-MBIRn and SD-FBP was within ±5.0 HU in most cases. The sensitivity/specificity/accuracy of CT[L] <48 HU in RD-MBIRn and RD-MBIRc were 1.00/0.97/0.98 and 1.00/0.92/0.93, respectively, showing that RD-MBIRn permits significant improvements in specificity and accuracy (P < 0.05, McNemar test). For CT[L/S] <1.1, these values were 0.79/0.97/0.94 and 0.79/0.97/0.94 in RD-MBIRn and RD-MBIRc, respectively. CONCLUSION: When CT[L] <48 HU was applied, RD-MBIRn presented a significantly improved hepatic steatosis diagnostic performance compared with RD-MBIRc; indeed, it was almost equivalent to that afforded by SD-FBP.
PURPOSE: To compare new and conventional versions of model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) in reduced-dose computed tomography (CT) in terms of diagnostic performance for hepatic steatosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Images were reconstructed from standard-dose and aggressively reduced-dose (the dose-length product was reduced by 91 %) unenhanced abdominopelvic CT scans of 86 patients using filtered back projection (SD-FBP) and new and conventional versions of MBIR (RD-MBIRn and RD-MBIRc), respectively. The mean CT attenuation of the liver (CT[L]) and the spleen as well as the ratio of these parameters (CT[L/S]) were calculated. CT[L] <48 Hounsfield units (HU) and CT[L/S] <1.1 were applied to SD-FBP (used as the reference standard; the number of positive patients was 12 and 14, respectively), RD-MBIRn, and RD-MBIRc. RESULTS: CT[L]s in SD-FBP/RD-MBIRn/RD-MBIRc were 56.9/55.9/52.8 HU. The difference in CT[L] between RD-MBIRn and SD-FBP was within ±5.0 HU in most cases. The sensitivity/specificity/accuracy of CT[L] <48 HU in RD-MBIRn and RD-MBIRc were 1.00/0.97/0.98 and 1.00/0.92/0.93, respectively, showing that RD-MBIRn permits significant improvements in specificity and accuracy (P < 0.05, McNemar test). For CT[L/S] <1.1, these values were 0.79/0.97/0.94 and 0.79/0.97/0.94 in RD-MBIRn and RD-MBIRc, respectively. CONCLUSION: When CT[L] <48 HU was applied, RD-MBIRn presented a significantly improved hepatic steatosis diagnostic performance compared with RD-MBIRc; indeed, it was almost equivalent to that afforded by SD-FBP.
Authors: Jeffrey D Browning; Lidia S Szczepaniak; Robert Dobbins; Pamela Nuremberg; Jay D Horton; Jonathan C Cohen; Scott M Grundy; Helen H Hobbs Journal: Hepatology Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Sang Won Lee; Seong Ho Park; Kyoung Won Kim; Eugene K Choi; Yong Moon Shin; Pyo Nyun Kim; Kyoung Ho Lee; Eun Sil Yu; Shin Hwang; Sung-Gyu Lee Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Piyaporn Limanond; Steven S Raman; Charles Lassman; James Sayre; R Mark Ghobrial; Ronald W Busuttil; Sammy Saab; David S K Lu Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 11.105