Akinori Hata1, Masahiro Yanagawa2, Osamu Honda2, Tomoko Gyobu2, Ken Ueda2, Noriyuki Tomiyama2. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, Japan. a-hata@radiol.med.osaka-u.ac.jp. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess image quality of filtered back-projection (FBP) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) with a conventional setting and a new lung-specific setting on submillisievert CT. METHODS: A lung phantom with artificial nodules was scanned with 10 mA at 120 kVp and 80 kVp (0.14 mSv and 0.05 mSv, respectively); images were reconstructed using FBP and MBIR with conventional setting (MBIRStnd) and lung-specific settings (MBIRRP20/Tx and MBIRRP20). Three observers subjectively scored overall image quality and image findings on a 5-point scale (1 = worst, 5 = best) compared with reference standard images (50 mA-FBP at 120, 100, 80 kVp). Image noise was measured objectively. RESULTS: MBIRRP20/Tx performed significantly better than MBIRStnd for overall image quality in 80-kVp images (p < 0.01), blurring of the border between lung and chest wall in 120p-kVp images (p < 0.05) and the ventral area of 80-kVp images (p < 0.001), and clarity of small vessels in the ventral area of 80-kVp images (p = 0.037). At 120 kVp, 10 mA-MBIRRP20 and 10 mA-MBIRRP20/Tx showed similar performance to 50 mA-FBP. MBIRStnd was better for noise reduction. Except for blurring in 120 kVp-MBIRStnd, MBIRs performed better than FBP. CONCLUSION: Although a conventional setting was advantageous in noise reduction, a lung-specific setting can provide more appropriate image quality, even on submillisievert CT. KEY POINTS: • Lung-specific submillisievert 10 mA-MBIR CT setting has similar performance to 50 mA-FBP • The new lung-specific settings improve vessel clarity and blurring of borders • The new settings may provide more appropriate images than conventional settings.
OBJECTIVE: To assess image quality of filtered back-projection (FBP) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) with a conventional setting and a new lung-specific setting on submillisievert CT. METHODS: A lung phantom with artificial nodules was scanned with 10 mA at 120 kVp and 80 kVp (0.14 mSv and 0.05 mSv, respectively); images were reconstructed using FBP and MBIR with conventional setting (MBIRStnd) and lung-specific settings (MBIRRP20/Tx and MBIRRP20). Three observers subjectively scored overall image quality and image findings on a 5-point scale (1 = worst, 5 = best) compared with reference standard images (50 mA-FBP at 120, 100, 80 kVp). Image noise was measured objectively. RESULTS: MBIRRP20/Tx performed significantly better than MBIRStnd for overall image quality in 80-kVp images (p < 0.01), blurring of the border between lung and chest wall in 120p-kVp images (p < 0.05) and the ventral area of 80-kVp images (p < 0.001), and clarity of small vessels in the ventral area of 80-kVp images (p = 0.037). At 120 kVp, 10 mA-MBIRRP20 and 10 mA-MBIRRP20/Tx showed similar performance to 50 mA-FBP. MBIRStnd was better for noise reduction. Except for blurring in 120 kVp-MBIRStnd, MBIRs performed better than FBP. CONCLUSION: Although a conventional setting was advantageous in noise reduction, a lung-specific setting can provide more appropriate image quality, even on submillisievert CT. KEY POINTS: • Lung-specific submillisievert 10 mA-MBIR CT setting has similar performance to 50 mA-FBP • The new lung-specific settings improve vessel clarity and blurring of borders • The new settings may provide more appropriate images than conventional settings.
Authors: Kimberly L Shampain; Matthew S Davenport; Richard H Cohan; Mitchell M Goodsitt; James H Ellis; Joel F Platt Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: A D Annoni; D Andreini; G Pontone; A Formenti; M Petullà; E Consiglio; E Nobili; A Baggiano; E Conte; S Mushtaq; E Bertella; F Billi; A L Bartorelli; P Montorsi; M Pepi Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Kelsey B Mathieu; Hua Ai; Patricia S Fox; Myrna Cobos Barco Godoy; Reginald F Munden; Patricia M de Groot; Tinsu Pan Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 2.102