Andrea I Schmid1, Michael Uder1,2, Michael M Lell1,3. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Germany. 2. 2 Imaging Science Institute (ISI) Erlangen, Department of Radiology, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Germany. 3. 3 Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Nürnberg, Germany, Paracelsus Medical University.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate image quality and radiation dose in low-dose head and neck CT comparing two different commercially available iterative reconstruction algorithms: sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) and advanced modeled iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE) with fixed and automated tube voltage adaptation (TVA). METHODS: CT examinations of 103 patients were analysed. 58 patients were examined on a single-source CT at fixed tube voltage of 120 kV and reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and SAFIRE (Strength Level 3). 45 patients were examined in a single-source mode on a dual-source CT with automated TVA and reconstructed with FBP and ADMIRE (Strength Levels 2 and 3). Image noise was calculated in seven anatomical volumes of interest. Subjective evaluation of the CT images was performed using a four-grade scale. RESULTS: Mean CT numbers of FBP and the corresponding iterative reconstruction did not differ significantly (p = 0.74-0.99). Image noise was lower with both iterative reconstruction techniques than with FBP (SAFIRE 3: -22.3%; ADMIRE 2: -14.9%; ADMIRE 3: -24.2%; all p < 0.05); hence, the signal-to-noise ratio and the contrast-to-noise values were higher. Subjective image quality revealed a more favourable result for the iterative reconstruction. ADMIRE 3 in combination with automated TVA showed 14.4% (p < 0.05) less image noise with a 7.5% lower radiation dose than SAFIRE 3 with fixed tube voltage. CONCLUSIONS: Higher image quality at lower radiation dose can be achieved using ADMIRE in combination with automated TVA.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate image quality and radiation dose in low-dose head and neck CT comparing two different commercially available iterative reconstruction algorithms: sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) and advanced modeled iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE) with fixed and automated tube voltage adaptation (TVA). METHODS: CT examinations of 103 patients were analysed. 58 patients were examined on a single-source CT at fixed tube voltage of 120 kV and reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and SAFIRE (Strength Level 3). 45 patients were examined in a single-source mode on a dual-source CT with automated TVA and reconstructed with FBP and ADMIRE (Strength Levels 2 and 3). Image noise was calculated in seven anatomical volumes of interest. Subjective evaluation of the CT images was performed using a four-grade scale. RESULTS: Mean CT numbers of FBP and the corresponding iterative reconstruction did not differ significantly (p = 0.74-0.99). Image noise was lower with both iterative reconstruction techniques than with FBP (SAFIRE 3: -22.3%; ADMIRE 2: -14.9%; ADMIRE 3: -24.2%; all p < 0.05); hence, the signal-to-noise ratio and the contrast-to-noise values were higher. Subjective image quality revealed a more favourable result for the iterative reconstruction. ADMIRE 3 in combination with automated TVA showed 14.4% (p < 0.05) less image noise with a 7.5% lower radiation dose than SAFIRE 3 with fixed tube voltage. CONCLUSIONS: Higher image quality at lower radiation dose can be achieved using ADMIRE in combination with automated TVA.
Entities:
Keywords:
computed tomography; head and neck; image quality enhancement; iterative reconstruction; radiation dose
Authors: Jenny K Hoang; Terry T Yoshizumi; Giao Nguyen; Greta Toncheva; Kingshuk Roy Choudhury; Andreia R Gafton; James D Eastwood; Carolyn Lowry; Lynne M Hurwitz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Martha S Linet; Thomas L Slovis; Donald L Miller; Ruth Kleinerman; Choonsik Lee; Preetha Rajaraman; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2012-02-03 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Mark E Baker; Frank Dong; Andrew Primak; Nancy A Obuchowski; David Einstein; Namita Gandhi; Brian R Herts; Andrei Purysko; Erick Remer; Neil Vachhani; Neil Vachani Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Martin J Willemink; Richard A P Takx; Pim A de Jong; Ricardo P J Budde; Ronald L A W Bleys; Marco Das; Joachim E Wildberger; Mathias Prokop; Nico Buls; Johan de Mey; Tim Leiner; Arnold M R Schilham Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2014 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Michael M Lell; Gregor Jost; Johannes Georg Korporaal; Andreas Horst Mahnken; Thomas G Flohr; Michael Uder; Hubertus Pietsch Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Doris Leithner; Julian L Wichmann; Scherwin Mahmoudi; Simon S Martin; Moritz H Albrecht; Thomas J Vogl; Jan-Erik Scholtz Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Lukas Lenga; Franziska Trapp; Moritz H Albrecht; Julian L Wichmann; Addison A Johnson; Ibrahim Yel; Tommaso D'Angelo; Christian Booz; Thomas J Vogl; Simon S Martin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-01-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Lukas Lenga; Marvin Lange; Simon S Martin; Moritz H Albrecht; Christian Booz; Ibrahim Yel; Christophe T Arendt; Thomas J Vogl; Doris Leithner Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Angeliki Neroladaki; Steve Philippe Martin; Ilias Bagetakos; Diomidis Botsikas; Marion Hamard; Xavier Montet; Sana Boudabbous Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 1.817