OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare abdominopelvic computed tomography images reconstructed with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V (ASIR-V) with model-based iterative reconstruction (Veo 3.0), ASIR, and filtered back projection (FBP). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Abdominopelvic computed tomography scans for 36 patients (26 males and 10 females) were reconstructed using FBP, ASIR (80%), Veo 3.0, and ASIR-V (30%, 60%, 90%). Mean ±SD patient age was 32 ± 10 years with mean ± SD body mass index of 26.9 ± 4.4 kg/m. Images were reviewed by 2 independent readers in a blinded, randomized fashion. Hounsfield unit, noise, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) values were calculated for each reconstruction algorithm for further comparison. Phantom evaluation of low-contrast detectability (LCD) and high-contrast resolution was performed. RESULTS:Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V 30%, ASIR-V 60%, and ASIR 80% were generally superior qualitatively compared with ASIR-V 90%, Veo 3.0, and FBP (P < 0.05). Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V 90% showed superior LCD and had the highest CNR in the liver, aorta, and, pancreas, measuring 7.32 ± 3.22, 11.60 ± 4.25, and 4.60 ± 2.31, respectively, compared with the next best series of ASIR-V 60% with respective CNR values of 5.54 ± 2.39, 8.78 ± 3.15, and 3.49 ± 1.77 (P <0.0001). Veo 3.0 and ASIR 80% had the best and worst spatial resolution, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V 30% and ASIR-V 60% provided the best combination of qualitative and quantitative performance. Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction 80% was equivalent qualitatively, but demonstrated inferior spatial resolution and LCD.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare abdominopelvic computed tomography images reconstructed with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V (ASIR-V) with model-based iterative reconstruction (Veo 3.0), ASIR, and filtered back projection (FBP). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Abdominopelvic computed tomography scans for 36 patients (26 males and 10 females) were reconstructed using FBP, ASIR (80%), Veo 3.0, and ASIR-V (30%, 60%, 90%). Mean ± SD patient age was 32 ± 10 years with mean ± SD body mass index of 26.9 ± 4.4 kg/m. Images were reviewed by 2 independent readers in a blinded, randomized fashion. Hounsfield unit, noise, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) values were calculated for each reconstruction algorithm for further comparison. Phantom evaluation of low-contrast detectability (LCD) and high-contrast resolution was performed. RESULTS: Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V 30%, ASIR-V 60%, and ASIR 80% were generally superior qualitatively compared with ASIR-V 90%, Veo 3.0, and FBP (P < 0.05). Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V 90% showed superior LCD and had the highest CNR in the liver, aorta, and, pancreas, measuring 7.32 ± 3.22, 11.60 ± 4.25, and 4.60 ± 2.31, respectively, compared with the next best series of ASIR-V 60% with respective CNR values of 5.54 ± 2.39, 8.78 ± 3.15, and 3.49 ± 1.77 (P <0.0001). Veo 3.0 and ASIR 80% had the best and worst spatial resolution, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V 30% and ASIR-V 60% provided the best combination of qualitative and quantitative performance. Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction 80% was equivalent qualitatively, but demonstrated inferior spatial resolution and LCD.
Authors: Yoshiko Sagara; Amy K Hara; William Pavlicek; Alvin C Silva; Robert G Paden; Qing Wu Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.959
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: J Greffier; F Macri; A Larbi; A Fernandez; E Khasanova; F Pereira; C Mekkaoui; J P Beregi Journal: Diagn Interv Imaging Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 4.026
Authors: Eric C Ehman; Lifeng Yu; Armando Manduca; Amy K Hara; Maria M Shiung; Dayna Jondal; David S Lake; Robert G Paden; Daniel J Blezek; Michael R Bruesewitz; Cynthia H McCollough; David M Hough; Joel G Fletcher Journal: Radiographics Date: 2014 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Corey T Jensen; Morgan E Telesmanich; Nicolaus A Wagner-Bartak; Xinming Liu; John Rong; Janio Szklaruk; Aliya Qayyum; Wei Wei; Adam G Chandler; Eric P Tamm Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Dominik C Benz; Christoph Gräni; Fran Mikulicic; Jan Vontobel; Tobias A Fuchs; Mathias Possner; Olivier F Clerc; Julia Stehli; Oliver Gaemperli; Aju P Pazhenkottil; Ronny R Buechel; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2016 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 1.826
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: Corey T Jensen; Shiva Gupta; Mohammed M Saleh; Xinming Liu; Vincenzo K Wong; Usama Salem; Wei Qiao; Ehsan Samei; Nicolaus A Wagner-Bartak Journal: Radiology Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 29.146
Authors: Y Kubo; K Ito; M Sone; H Nagasawa; Y Onishi; N Umakoshi; T Hasegawa; T Akimoto; M Kusumoto Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 3.825