Azeez Omotayo1, Idris Elbakri1,2,3. 1. Division of Medical Physics, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 3. Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Iterative algorithms are gaining clinical acceptance in CT. We performed objective phantom-based image quality evaluation of five commercial iterative reconstruction algorithms available on four different multi-detector CT (MDCT) scanners at different dose levels as well as the conventional filtered back-projection (FBP) reconstruction. METHODS: Using the Catphan500 phantom, we evaluated image noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), modulation transfer function (MTF) and noise-power spectrum (NPS). The algorithms were evaluated over a CTDIvol range of 0.75-18.7 mGy on four major MDCT scanners: GE DiscoveryCT750HD (algorithms: ASIR™ and VEO™); Siemens Somatom Definition AS+ (algorithm: SAFIRE™); Toshiba Aquilion64 (algorithm: AIDR3D™); and Philips Ingenuity iCT256 (algorithm: iDose4™). Images were reconstructed using FBP and the respective iterative algorithms on the four scanners. RESULTS: Use of iterative algorithms decreased image noise and increased CNR, relative to FBP. In the dose range of 1.3-1.5 mGy, noise reduction using iterative algorithms was in the range of 11%-51% on GE DiscoveryCT750HD, 10%-52% on Siemens Somatom Definition AS+, 49%-62% on Toshiba Aquilion64, and 13%-44% on Philips Ingenuity iCT256. The corresponding CNR increase was in the range 11%-105% on GE, 11%-106% on Siemens, 85%-145% on Toshiba and 13%-77% on Philips respectively. Most algorithms did not affect the MTF, except for VEO™ which produced an increase in the limiting resolution of up to 30%. A shift in the peak of the NPS curve towards lower frequencies and a decrease in NPS amplitude were obtained with all iterative algorithms. VEO™ required long reconstruction times, while all other algorithms produced reconstructions in real time. Compared to FBP, iterative algorithms reduced image noise and increased CNR. CONCLUSIONS: The iterative algorithms available on different scanners achieved different levels of noise reduction and CNR increase while spatial resolution improvements were obtained only with VEO™. This study is useful in that it provides performance assessment of the iterative algorithms available from several mainstream CT manufacturers.
OBJECTIVE: Iterative algorithms are gaining clinical acceptance in CT. We performed objective phantom-based image quality evaluation of five commercial iterative reconstruction algorithms available on four different multi-detector CT (MDCT) scanners at different dose levels as well as the conventional filtered back-projection (FBP) reconstruction. METHODS: Using the Catphan500 phantom, we evaluated image noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), modulation transfer function (MTF) and noise-power spectrum (NPS). The algorithms were evaluated over a CTDIvol range of 0.75-18.7 mGy on four major MDCT scanners: GE DiscoveryCT750HD (algorithms: ASIR™ and VEO™); Siemens Somatom Definition AS+ (algorithm: SAFIRE™); Toshiba Aquilion64 (algorithm: AIDR3D™); and Philips Ingenuity iCT256 (algorithm: iDose4™). Images were reconstructed using FBP and the respective iterative algorithms on the four scanners. RESULTS: Use of iterative algorithms decreased image noise and increased CNR, relative to FBP. In the dose range of 1.3-1.5 mGy, noise reduction using iterative algorithms was in the range of 11%-51% on GE DiscoveryCT750HD, 10%-52% on Siemens Somatom Definition AS+, 49%-62% on Toshiba Aquilion64, and 13%-44% on Philips Ingenuity iCT256. The corresponding CNR increase was in the range 11%-105% on GE, 11%-106% on Siemens, 85%-145% on Toshiba and 13%-77% on Philips respectively. Most algorithms did not affect the MTF, except for VEO™ which produced an increase in the limiting resolution of up to 30%. A shift in the peak of the NPS curve towards lower frequencies and a decrease in NPS amplitude were obtained with all iterative algorithms. VEO™ required long reconstruction times, while all other algorithms produced reconstructions in real time. Compared to FBP, iterative algorithms reduced image noise and increased CNR. CONCLUSIONS: The iterative algorithms available on different scanners achieved different levels of noise reduction and CNR increase while spatial resolution improvements were obtained only with VEO™. This study is useful in that it provides performance assessment of the iterative algorithms available from several mainstream CT manufacturers.