Lin Yang1,2, Jian Zhuang3, Meiping Huang2,4, Changhong Liang5,6, Hui Liu2. 1. Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. 2. Department of Radiology, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, 106 Zhongshan Er Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China. 3. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of South China Structural Heart Disease, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China. 4. Department of Catheterization Lab, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of South China Structural Heart Disease, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China. 5. Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. cjr.lchh@vip.163.com. 6. Department of Radiology, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, 106 Zhongshan Er Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China. cjr.lchh@vip.163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hybrid iterative reconstruction can reduce image noise and produce better image quality compared with filtered back-projection (FBP), but few reports describe optimization of the iteration level. OBJECTIVE: We optimized the iteration level of iDose4 and evaluated image quality for pediatric cardiac CT angiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Children (n = 160) with congenital heart disease were enrolled and divided into full-dose (n = 84) and half-dose (n = 76) groups. Four series were reconstructed using FBP, and iDose4 levels 2, 4 and 6; we evaluated subjective quality of the series using a 5-grade scale and compared the series using a Kruskal-Wallis H test. For FBP and iDose4-optimal images, we compared contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) and size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) using a Student's t-test. We also compared diagnostic-accuracy of each group using a Kruskal-Wallis H test. RESULTS: Mean scores for iDose4 level 4 were the best in both dose groups (all P < 0.05). CNR was improved in both groups with iDose4 level 4 as compared with FBP. Mean decrease in SSDE was 53% in the half-dose group. Diagnostic accuracy for the four datasets were in the range 92.6-96.2% (no statistical difference). CONCLUSION: iDose4 level 4 was optimal for both the full- and half-dose groups. Protocols with iDose4 level 4 allowed 53% reduction in SSDE without significantly affecting image quality and diagnostic accuracy.
BACKGROUND: Hybrid iterative reconstruction can reduce image noise and produce better image quality compared with filtered back-projection (FBP), but few reports describe optimization of the iteration level. OBJECTIVE: We optimized the iteration level of iDose4 and evaluated image quality for pediatric cardiac CT angiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Children (n = 160) with congenital heart disease were enrolled and divided into full-dose (n = 84) and half-dose (n = 76) groups. Four series were reconstructed using FBP, and iDose4 levels 2, 4 and 6; we evaluated subjective quality of the series using a 5-grade scale and compared the series using a Kruskal-Wallis H test. For FBP and iDose4-optimal images, we compared contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) and size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) using a Student's t-test. We also compared diagnostic-accuracy of each group using a Kruskal-Wallis H test. RESULTS: Mean scores for iDose4 level 4 were the best in both dose groups (all P < 0.05). CNR was improved in both groups with iDose4 level 4 as compared with FBP. Mean decrease in SSDE was 53% in the half-dose group. Diagnostic accuracy for the four datasets were in the range 92.6-96.2% (no statistical difference). CONCLUSION:iDose4 level 4 was optimal for both the full- and half-dose groups. Protocols with iDose4 level 4 allowed 53% reduction in SSDE without significantly affecting image quality and diagnostic accuracy.
Authors: Christopher Herzog; Denise M Mulvihill; Shaun A Nguyen; Giancarlo Savino; Bernhard Schmidt; Philip Costello; Thomas J Vogl; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Varut Vardhanabhuti; Robert J Loader; Grant R Mitchell; Richard D Riordan; Carl A Roobottom Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Francesco Tricarico; Anthony M Hlavacek; U Joseph Schoepf; Ullrich Ebersberger; John W Nance; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Young Jun Cho; J Reid Spears; Francesco Secchi; Giancarlo Savino; Riccardo Marano; Stefan O Schoenberg; Lorenzo Bonomo; Paul Apfaltrer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-12-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Frédéric A Miéville; François Gudinchet; Francis Brunelle; François O Bochud; Francis R Verdun Journal: Phys Med Date: 2012-01-02 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Sarah Vaalma; Jürgen Rahmer; Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos; Robert L Duschka; Jörn Borgert; Jörg Barkhausen; Florian M Vogt; Julian Haegele Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 3.240