| Literature DB >> 28302073 |
Jihang Sun1, Tong Yu1, Jinrong Liu2, Xiaomin Duan1, Di Hu1, Yong Liu1, Yun Peng3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) is a promising reconstruction method which could improve CT image quality with low radiation dose. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the advantage of using MBIR for noise reduction and image quality improvement in low dose chest CT for children with necrotizing pneumonia, over the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) and conventional filtered back-projection (FBP) technique.Entities:
Keywords: Child; Computed tomography (CT); Filtered back-projection; Model-based iterative reconstruction; Necrotizing pneumonia
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28302073 PMCID: PMC5356402 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-017-0177-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Imaging ISSN: 1471-2342 Impact factor: 1.930
Subjective image quality evaluation among different reconstructions
| Algorithm | Doctor A | Doctor B | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall diagnosis confidence |
| Display ability for necrotic lesions |
| Overall diagnosis confidence |
| Display ability for necrotic lesions |
| |
| MBIR | 4.6 ± 0.5 | - | 5.0 ± 0.0 | - | 5.0 ± 0.0 | - | 5.0 ± 0.0 | - |
| ASIR | 2.9 ± 0.3 | < | 2.6 ± 0.5 | < | 3.0 ± 0.2 | < | 3.0 ± 0.2 | < |
| FBP | 2.7 ± 0.5 | < | 2.3 ± 0.5 | < | 2.9 ± 0.3 | < | 2.6 ± 0.5 | < |
Fig. 1Average number and standard deviation of objective image noise of 4 algorithms on different tissues. Images were 0.625 mm in thickness unless stated otherwise. Le: consolidated lesion; Nec: necrotic area; Mus: muscle; Air: background air around body. ※ Significant difference of image noise compared with the 0.625 mm MBIR image
Fig. 2Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for the consolidated lesion (a); necrotic area (b); back muscles (c) and background air (d). Figures e and f show the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) for consolidated lesion contrast to necrotic area (e) and back muscles (f). SNR = CT density(ROI)/SD(ROI). CNR(E) = (CT density(Lesion)–CT density(Necrosis))/SD(muscle), CNR(F) = (CT density(Lesion)–CT density(Air))/SD(Air). ※ : There is significant difference between MBIR image and other images
Fig. 3A child with group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus infection. CT scan was acquired at 120 kV with automatic tube current modulation technique (19–22 mA). Multi-planar reconstruction (MPR) was used for image review. (a, b, c, d) were MPR images with mediastinal window. a MBIR image with 0.625 mm; b ASIR image with 0.625 mm; c FBP image with 5 mm; d FBP image with 0.625 mm. Image noise of in MBIR image (a) was reduced significantly compared with that of 0.625 mm ASIR image (b) and 0.625 mm FBP image (d), and was similar to that of 5 mm FBP image (c). Necrotic lesions (arrowheads) and encapsulated pleural effusion (arrow) in the MBIR image (a) were displayed much clearly and confidently than in the 0.625 mm ASIR (b) and FBP (d) images. 5 mm FBP image (c) was too thick to display boundaries and scope of necrotic lesions
Objective image noise measurements
| Tissue | Imagea | CT value | Noise | SNR | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD |
| Mean ± SD |
| Mean ± SD |
| ||
| Consolidated lesion | MBIR | 71.1 ± 9.3 | - | 13.9 ± 4.0 | - | 5.5 ± 1.6 | - |
| ASIR | 67.9 ± 12.7 | 0.13 | 24.9 ± 6.6 | <0.01 | 2.9 ± 0.9 | <0.01 | |
| 5 mm FBP | 63.9 ± 7.9 | <0.01 | 17.2 ± 6.4 | 0.02 | 4.1 ± 1.3 | <0.01 | |
| FBP | 68.9 ± 12.1 | 0.10 | 33.8 ± 8.7 | <0.01 | 2.2 ± 0.6 | <0.01 | |
| Necrotic area | MBIR | 14.8 ± 5.7 | - | 9.4 ± 1.4 | - | 1.6 ± 0.6 | - |
| ASIR | 16.2 ± 5.5 | 0.02 | 22.3 ± 1.6 | <0.01 | 0.7 ± 0.3 | <0.01 | |
| 5 mm FBP | 15.6 ± 5.0 | 0.19 | 9.9 ± 1.8 | 0.25 | 1.6 ± 0.6 | 0.92 | |
| FBP | 16.2 ± 5.0 | 0.05 | 30.2 ± 3.0 | <0.01 | 0.5 ± 0.2 | <0.01 | |
| Muscle | MBIR | 57.4 ± 7.2 | - | 12.1 ± 2.2 | - | 4.9 ± 1.1 | - |
| ASIR | 56.3 ± 6.6 | 0.48 | 22.7 ± 4.3 | <0.01 | 2.6 ± 0.7 | <0.01 | |
| 5 mm FBP | 56.6 ± 6.6 | 0.49 | 12.9 ± 2.3 | 0.07 | 4.5 ± 0.8 | 0.04 | |
| FBP | 56.2 ± 8.9 | 0.21 | 30.7 ± 5.8 | <0.01 | 1.9 ± 0.5 | <0.01 | |
| Air | MBIR | −994.8 ± 4.3 | - | 3.6 ± 1.9 | - | −407.9 ± 280.0 | - |
| ASIR | −996.7 ± 3.2 | 0.08 | 11.2 ± 2.1 | <0.01 | −92.3 ± 18.8 | 0.01 | |
| 5 mm FBP | −996.8 ± 2.6 | 0.09 | 5.2 ± 1.2 | <0.01 | −203.9 ± 51.4 | 0.02 | |
| FBP | −996.5 ± 4.0 | 0.16 | 15.0 ± 2.7 | <0.01 | −69.0 ± 14.5 | 0.01 | |
aImages were 0.625 mm in thickness unless stated otherwise
CNR between model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) image and other reconstructions
| Algorithm | Consolidated lesion-necrotic area | Consolidated lesion -air | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNR |
| CNR |
| |
| MBIR (0.625 mm) | 4.8 ± 1.3 | - | 436.6 ± 298.5 | - |
| ASIR (0.625 mm) | 2.4 ± 1.0 | <0.01 | 98.5 ± 19.8 | <0.01 |
| FBP (5 mm) | 3.9 ± 1.1 | <0.01 | 216.9 ± 54.7 | <0.01 |
| FBP (0.625 mm) | 1.8 ± 0.6 | <0.01 | 73.8 ± 15.4 | <0.01 |