OBJECTIVE: To compare image quality of two adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR and ASiR-V) algorithms using objective and subjective metrics for routine liver CT, with the conventional filtered back projection (FBP) reconstructions as reference standards. METHODS: This institutional review board-approved study included 52 patients with clinically suspected hepatic metastases. Patients were divided equally into ASiR and ASiR-V groups with same scan parameters. Images were reconstructed with ASiR and ASiR-V from 0 (FBP) to 100% blending percentages at 10% interval in its respective group. Mean and standard deviation of CT numbers for liver parenchyma were recorded. Two experienced radiologists reviewed all images for image quality blindly and independently. Data were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: There was no difference in CT dose index between ASiR and ASiR-V groups. As the percentage of ASiR and ASiR-V increased from 10 to 100% , image noise reduced by 8.6 -57.9% and 8.9-81.6%, respectively, compared with FBP. There was substantial interobserver agreement in image quality assessment for ASiR and ASiR-V images. Compared with FBP reconstruction, subjective image quality scores of ASiR and ASiR-V improved significantly as percentage increased from 10 to 80% for ASiR (peaked at 50% with 32.2% noise reduction) and from 10 to 90% (peaked at 60% with 51.5% noise reduction) for ASiR-V. CONCLUSION: Both ASiR and ASiR-V improved the objective and subjective image quality for routine liver CT compared with FBP. ASiR-V provided further image quality improvement with higher acceptable percentage than ASiR, and ASiR-V60% had the highest image quality score. Advances in knowledge: (1) Both ASiR and ASiR-V significantly reduce image noise compared with conventional FBP reconstruction. (2) ASiR-V with 60 blending percentage provides the highest image quality score in routine liver CT.
OBJECTIVE: To compare image quality of two adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR and ASiR-V) algorithms using objective and subjective metrics for routine liver CT, with the conventional filtered back projection (FBP) reconstructions as reference standards. METHODS: This institutional review board-approved study included 52 patients with clinically suspected hepatic metastases. Patients were divided equally into ASiR and ASiR-V groups with same scan parameters. Images were reconstructed with ASiR and ASiR-V from 0 (FBP) to 100% blending percentages at 10% interval in its respective group. Mean and standard deviation of CT numbers for liver parenchyma were recorded. Two experienced radiologists reviewed all images for image quality blindly and independently. Data were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: There was no difference in CT dose index between ASiR and ASiR-V groups. As the percentage of ASiR and ASiR-V increased from 10 to 100% , image noise reduced by 8.6 -57.9% and 8.9-81.6%, respectively, compared with FBP. There was substantial interobserver agreement in image quality assessment for ASiR and ASiR-V images. Compared with FBP reconstruction, subjective image quality scores of ASiR and ASiR-V improved significantly as percentage increased from 10 to 80% for ASiR (peaked at 50% with 32.2% noise reduction) and from 10 to 90% (peaked at 60% with 51.5% noise reduction) for ASiR-V. CONCLUSION: Both ASiR and ASiR-V improved the objective and subjective image quality for routine liver CT compared with FBP. ASiR-V provided further image quality improvement with higher acceptable percentage than ASiR, and ASiR-V60% had the highest image quality score. Advances in knowledge: (1) Both ASiR and ASiR-V significantly reduce image noise compared with conventional FBP reconstruction. (2) ASiR-V with 60 blending percentage provides the highest image quality score in routine liver CT.
Authors: Anne Catrine Trægde Martinsen; Hilde Kjernlie Sæther; Per Kristian Hol; Dag Rune Olsen; Per Skaane Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2011-05-02 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Anna Winklehner; Christoph Karlo; Gilbert Puippe; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas Flohr; Robert Goetti; Thomas Pfammatter; Thomas Frauenfelder; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-08-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sarabjeet Singh; Mannudeep K Kalra; Jiang Hsieh; Paul E Licato; Synho Do; Homer H Pien; Michael A Blake Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-09-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ji Eun Lee; Seo-Youn Choi; Jeong Ah Hwang; Sanghyeok Lim; Min Hee Lee; Boem Ha Yi; Jang Gyu Cha Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 1.889