Gautier Laurent1, Nicolas Villani2, Gabriela Hossu3, Aymeric Rauch4, Alain Noël5, Alain Blum4, Pedro Augusto Gondim Teixeira4. 1. Guilloz Imaging Department, Central Hospital, University Hospital Center of Nancy, 29 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 54035, Nancy Cedex, France. gautierlaurent54@gmail.com. 2. Medical Radiophysical Unit, Centre Alexis-Vautrin, 6 Avenue de Bourgogne, 54129, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France. 3. Université de Lorraine, Inserm, IADI, F-54000, Nancy, France. 4. Guilloz Imaging Department, Central Hospital, University Hospital Center of Nancy, 29 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 54035, Nancy Cedex, France. 5. CRAN UMR 7039 Université de Lorraine-CNRS, Villers-lès-Nancy, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate and compare the image quality and acceptance of a full MBIR algorithm to that of an earlier full IR hybrid algorithm and filtered back projection (FBP). METHODS: Acquisitions were performed with a 320 detector-row CT scanner with seven different dose levels. Images were reconstructed with three algorithms: FBP, full hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR), and a full model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm (full MBIR). The sensitometry, spatial resolution, image texture, and low-contrast detectability of these algorithms were compared. Subjective analysis of low-contrast detectability was performed. Ten radiologists answered a questionnaire on image quality and confidence in full MBIR images in clinical practice. RESULTS: The contrast-to-noise ratio of full MBIR was significantly higher than in the other algorithms (p < 0.0015). The spatial resolution was also higher with full MBIR at high frequencies (> 0.3 lp/mm). Full MBIR at low dose levels led to better low-contrast detectability and more inserts being identified with a higher confidence (p < 0.0001). Full MBIR was associated with a change in image texture compared to HIR and FBP. Eighty percent of radiologists judged general appearance and texture of full MBIR images worse than HIR. Moreover, compared with HIR, for 50% of radiologists, the diagnostic confidence on full MBIR images was worse. Questionnaire reliability was considered acceptable (Cronbach alpha 0.7). CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional iterative reconstruction algorithms, full MBMIR presented a higher image quality and low-contrast detectability and a worse acceptance among radiologists. KEY POINTS: • Full MBIR used led to an overall improvement in image quality compared with FBP and HIR. • Full MBIR leads to image texture change which reduces the confidence in these images among radiologists. • Awareness of the image texture change and improved quality of full MBIR reconstructed images could improve the acceptance of this technique in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate and compare the image quality and acceptance of a full MBIR algorithm to that of an earlier full IR hybrid algorithm and filtered back projection (FBP). METHODS: Acquisitions were performed with a 320 detector-row CT scanner with seven different dose levels. Images were reconstructed with three algorithms: FBP, full hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR), and a full model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm (full MBIR). The sensitometry, spatial resolution, image texture, and low-contrast detectability of these algorithms were compared. Subjective analysis of low-contrast detectability was performed. Ten radiologists answered a questionnaire on image quality and confidence in full MBIR images in clinical practice. RESULTS: The contrast-to-noise ratio of full MBIR was significantly higher than in the other algorithms (p < 0.0015). The spatial resolution was also higher with full MBIR at high frequencies (> 0.3 lp/mm). Full MBIR at low dose levels led to better low-contrast detectability and more inserts being identified with a higher confidence (p < 0.0001). Full MBIR was associated with a change in image texture compared to HIR and FBP. Eighty percent of radiologists judged general appearance and texture of full MBIR images worse than HIR. Moreover, compared with HIR, for 50% of radiologists, the diagnostic confidence on full MBIR images was worse. Questionnaire reliability was considered acceptable (Cronbach alpha 0.7). CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional iterative reconstruction algorithms, full MBMIR presented a higher image quality and low-contrast detectability and a worse acceptance among radiologists. KEY POINTS: • Full MBIR used led to an overall improvement in image quality compared with FBP and HIR. • Full MBIR leads to image texture change which reduces the confidence in these images among radiologists. • Awareness of the image texture change and improved quality of full MBIR reconstructed images could improve the acceptance of this technique in clinical practice.
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: D B Husarik; H Alkadhi; G D Puippe; C S Reiner; N C Chuck; F Morsbach; Z Szucs-Farkas; S T Schindera Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2014-12-29 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Lucas L Geyer; U Joseph Schoepf; Felix G Meinel; John W Nance; Gorka Bastarrika; Jonathon A Leipsic; Narinder S Paul; Marco Rengo; Andrea Laghi; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Martin J Willemink; Pim A de Jong; Tim Leiner; Linda M de Heer; Rutger A J Nievelstein; Ricardo P J Budde; Arnold M R Schilham Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-01-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sonja Gordic; Fabian Morsbach; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas Allmendinger; Thomas Flohr; Daniela Husarik; Stephan Baumueller; Rainer Raupach; Paul Stolzmann; Sebastian Leschka; Thomas Frauenfelder; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Pedro Augusto Gondim Teixeira; Nicolas Villani; Malik Ait Idir; Edouard Germain; Charles Lombard; Romain Gillet; Alain Blum Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-10
Authors: Thomas Sartoretti; Damien Racine; Victor Mergen; Lisa Jungblut; Pascal Monnin; Thomas G Flohr; Katharina Martini; Thomas Frauenfelder; Hatem Alkadhi; André Euler Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-02-18