PURPOSE: To qualitatively and quantitatively compare abdominal computed tomography (CT) images reconstructed with a new version of model-based iterative reconstruction (Veo 3.0; GE Healthcare) to those created with Veo 2.0. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board and was Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant. The raw data from 29 consecutive patients who had undergone CT abdomen scanning was used to reconstruct 4 sets of 3.75-mm axial images: Veo 2.0, Veo 3.0 standard, Veo 3.0 5% resolution preference (RP), and Veo 3.0 20% RP. A slice thickness optimization of 3.75 mm and texture feature was selected for Veo 3.0 reconstructions.The images were reviewed by 3 independent readers in a blinded, randomized fashion using a 5-point Likert scale and 5-point comparative scale.Multiple 2-dimensional circular regions of interest were defined for noise and contrast-to-noise ratio measurements. Line profiles were drawn across the 7 lp/cm bar pattern of the CatPhan 600 phantom for spatial resolution evaluation. RESULTS: The Veo 3.0 standard image set was scored better than Veo 2.0 in terms of artifacts (mean difference, 0.43; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.25-0.6; P < 0.0001), overall image quality (mean difference, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.62-1.13; P < 0.0001) and qualitative resolution (mean difference, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.69-1.1; P < 0.0001). Although the Veo 3.0 standard and RP05 presets were preferred across most categories, the Veo 3.0 RP20 series ranked best for bone detail. Image noise and spatial resolution increased along a spectrum with Veo 2.0 the lowest and RP20 the highest. CONCLUSION: Veo 3.0 enhances imaging evaluation relative to Veo 2.0; readers preferred Veo 3.0 image appearance despite the associated mild increases in image noise. These results provide suggested parameters to be used clinically and as a basis for future evaluations, such as focal lesion detection, in the oncology setting.
PURPOSE: To qualitatively and quantitatively compare abdominal computed tomography (CT) images reconstructed with a new version of model-based iterative reconstruction (Veo 3.0; GE Healthcare) to those created with Veo 2.0. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board and was Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant. The raw data from 29 consecutive patients who had undergone CT abdomen scanning was used to reconstruct 4 sets of 3.75-mm axial images: Veo 2.0, Veo 3.0 standard, Veo 3.0 5% resolution preference (RP), and Veo 3.0 20% RP. A slice thickness optimization of 3.75 mm and texture feature was selected for Veo 3.0 reconstructions.The images were reviewed by 3 independent readers in a blinded, randomized fashion using a 5-point Likert scale and 5-point comparative scale.Multiple 2-dimensional circular regions of interest were defined for noise and contrast-to-noise ratio measurements. Line profiles were drawn across the 7 lp/cm bar pattern of the CatPhan 600 phantom for spatial resolution evaluation. RESULTS: The Veo 3.0 standard image set was scored better than Veo 2.0 in terms of artifacts (mean difference, 0.43; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.25-0.6; P < 0.0001), overall image quality (mean difference, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.62-1.13; P < 0.0001) and qualitative resolution (mean difference, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.69-1.1; P < 0.0001). Although the Veo 3.0 standard and RP05 presets were preferred across most categories, the Veo 3.0 RP20 series ranked best for bone detail. Image noise and spatial resolution increased along a spectrum with Veo 2.0 the lowest and RP20 the highest. CONCLUSION: Veo 3.0 enhances imaging evaluation relative to Veo 2.0; readers preferred Veo 3.0 image appearance despite the associated mild increases in image noise. These results provide suggested parameters to be used clinically and as a basis for future evaluations, such as focal lesion detection, in the oncology setting.
Authors: Varut Vardhanabhuti; Richard D Riordan; Grant R Mitchell; Christopher Hyde; Carl A Roobottom Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Zsuzsanna Deák; Jochen M Grimm; Marcus Treitl; Lucas L Geyer; Ulrich Linsenmaier; Markus Körner; Maximilian F Reiser; Stefan Wirth Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: William P Shuman; Keith T Chan; Janet M Busey; Lee M Mitsumori; Eunice Choi; Kent M Koprowicz; Kalpana M Kanal Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-08-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Daniele Marin; Rendon C Nelson; Sebastian T Schindera; Samuel Richard; Richard S Youngblood; Terry T Yoshizumi; Ehsan Samei Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Martin H Goodenberger; Nicolaus A Wagner-Bartak; Shiva Gupta; Xinming Liu; Ramon Q Yap; Jia Sun; Eric P Tamm; Corey T Jensen Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2018 Mar/Apr Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Morgan E Telesmanich; Corey T Jensen; Jose L Enriquez; Nicolaus A Wagner-Bartak; Xinming Liu; Ott Le; Wei Wei; Adam G Chandler; Eric P Tamm Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 3.039