OBJECTIVES: Modern reconstruction and post-processing software aims at reducing image noise in CT images, potentially allowing for a reduction of the employed radiation exposure. This study aimed at assessing the influence of a novel deep-learning based software on the subjective and objective image quality compared to two traditional methods [filtered back-projection (FBP), iterative reconstruction (IR)]. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved retrospective study, abdominal low-dose CT images of 27 patients (mean age 38 ± 12 years, volumetric CT dose index 2.9 ± 1.8 mGy) were reconstructed with IR, FBP and, furthermore, post-processed using a novel software. For the three reconstructions, qualitative and quantitative image quality was evaluated by means of CT numbers, noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in six different ROIs. Additionally, the reconstructions were compared using SNR, peak SNR, root mean square error and mean absolute error to assess structural differences. RESULTS: On average, CT numbers varied within 1 Hounsfield unit (HU) for the three assessed methods in the assessed ROIs. In soft tissue, image noise was up to 42% lower compared to FBP and up to 27% lower to IR when applying the novel software. Consequently, SNR and CNR were highest with the novel software. For both IR and the novel software, subjective image quality was equal but higher than the image quality of FBP-images. CONCLUSION: The assessed software reduces image noise while maintaining image information, even in comparison to IR, allowing for a potential dose reduction of approximately 20% in abdominal CT imaging. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The assessed software reduces image noise by up to 27% compared to IR and 48% compared to FBP while maintaining the image information.The reduced image noise allows for a potential dose reduction of approximately 20% in abdominal imaging.
OBJECTIVES: Modern reconstruction and post-processing software aims at reducing image noise in CT images, potentially allowing for a reduction of the employed radiation exposure. This study aimed at assessing the influence of a novel deep-learning based software on the subjective and objective image quality compared to two traditional methods [filtered back-projection (FBP), iterative reconstruction (IR)]. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved retrospective study, abdominal low-dose CT images of 27 patients (mean age 38 ± 12 years, volumetric CT dose index 2.9 ± 1.8 mGy) were reconstructed with IR, FBP and, furthermore, post-processed using a novel software. For the three reconstructions, qualitative and quantitative image quality was evaluated by means of CT numbers, noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in six different ROIs. Additionally, the reconstructions were compared using SNR, peak SNR, root mean square error and mean absolute error to assess structural differences. RESULTS: On average, CT numbers varied within 1 Hounsfield unit (HU) for the three assessed methods in the assessed ROIs. In soft tissue, image noise was up to 42% lower compared to FBP and up to 27% lower to IR when applying the novel software. Consequently, SNR and CNR were highest with the novel software. For both IR and the novel software, subjective image quality was equal but higher than the image quality of FBP-images. CONCLUSION: The assessed software reduces image noise while maintaining image information, even in comparison to IR, allowing for a potential dose reduction of approximately 20% in abdominal CT imaging. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The assessed software reduces image noise by up to 27% compared to IR and 48% compared to FBP while maintaining the image information.The reduced image noise allows for a potential dose reduction of approximately 20% in abdominal imaging.
Authors: Annemarie M den Harder; Martin J Willemink; Quirina M B de Ruiter; Arnold M R Schilham; Gabriel P Krestin; Tim Leiner; Pim A de Jong; Ricardo P J Budde Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 3.528
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: Matthias S May; Wolfgang Wüst; Michael Brand; Christian Stahl; Thomas Allmendinger; Bernhard Schmidt; Michael Uder; Michael M Lell Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Hendrik Joost Wisselink; Gert Jan Pelgrim; Mieneke Rook; Maarten van den Berge; Kees Slump; Yeshu Nagaraj; Peter van Ooijen; Matthijs Oudkerk; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Yoon Joo Shin; Won Chang; Jong Chul Ye; Eunhee Kang; Dong Yul Oh; Yoon Jin Lee; Ji Hoon Park; Young Hoon Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Andrea Steuwe; Birte Valentin; Oliver T Bethge; Alexandra Ljimani; Günter Niegisch; Gerald Antoch; Joel Aissa Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-07-05