A Hata1, M Yanagawa2, Y Yoshida2, T Miyata2, N Kikuchi2, O Honda3, N Tomiyama2. 1. Department of Future Diagnostic Radiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan. Electronic address: a-hata@radiol.med.osaka-u.ac.jp. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan. 3. Department of Radiology, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shin-machi, Hirakata, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan.
Abstract
AIM: To assess the image quality of deep-learning image reconstruction (DLIR) of chest computed tomography (CT) images on a mediastinal window setting in comparison to an adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR-V). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients were evaluated retrospectively. All patients underwent contrast-enhanced chest CT and thin-section images were reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP); ASiR-V (60% and 100% blending setting); and DLIR (low, medium, and high settings). Image noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were evaluated objectively. Two independent radiologists evaluated ASiR-V 60% and DLIR subjectively, in comparison with FBP, on a five-point scale in terms of noise, streak artefact, lymph nodes, small vessels, and overall image quality on a mediastinal window setting (width 400 HU, level 60 HU). In addition, image texture of ASiR-Vs (60% and 100%) and DLIR-high was analysed subjectively. RESULTS: Compared with ASiR-V 60%, DLIR-med and DLIR-high showed significantly less noise, higher SNR, and higher CNR (p<0.0001). DLIR-high and ASiR-V 100% were not significantly different regarding noise (p=0.2918) and CNR (p=0.0642). At a higher DLIR setting, noise was lower and SNR and CNR were higher (p<0.0001). DLIR-high showed the best subjective scores for noise, streak artefact, and overall image quality (p<0.0001). Compared with ASiR-V 60%, DLIR-med and DLIR-high scored worse in the assessment of small vessels (p<0.0001). The image texture of DLIR-high was significantly finer than that of ASIR-Vs (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: DLIR-high improved the objective parameters and subjective image quality by reducing noise and streak artefacts and providing finer image texture.
AIM: To assess the image quality of deep-learning image reconstruction (DLIR) of chest computed tomography (CT) images on a mediastinal window setting in comparison to an adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR-V). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients were evaluated retrospectively. All patients underwent contrast-enhanced chest CT and thin-section images were reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP); ASiR-V (60% and 100% blending setting); and DLIR (low, medium, and high settings). Image noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were evaluated objectively. Two independent radiologists evaluated ASiR-V 60% and DLIR subjectively, in comparison with FBP, on a five-point scale in terms of noise, streak artefact, lymph nodes, small vessels, and overall image quality on a mediastinal window setting (width 400 HU, level 60 HU). In addition, image texture of ASiR-Vs (60% and 100%) and DLIR-high was analysed subjectively. RESULTS: Compared with ASiR-V 60%, DLIR-med and DLIR-high showed significantly less noise, higher SNR, and higher CNR (p<0.0001). DLIR-high and ASiR-V 100% were not significantly different regarding noise (p=0.2918) and CNR (p=0.0642). At a higher DLIR setting, noise was lower and SNR and CNR were higher (p<0.0001). DLIR-high showed the best subjective scores for noise, streak artefact, and overall image quality (p<0.0001). Compared with ASiR-V 60%, DLIR-med and DLIR-high scored worse in the assessment of small vessels (p<0.0001). The image texture of DLIR-high was significantly finer than that of ASIR-Vs (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: DLIR-high improved the objective parameters and subjective image quality by reducing noise and streak artefacts and providing finer image texture.