Improvement of low-contrast detectability in low-dose hepatic multidetector computed tomography using a novel adaptive filter: Evaluation with a computer-simulated liver including tumors

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 1-7

  Funama, Yoshinori ^a,f   Awai, Kazuo ^b   Miyazaki, Osamu ^d   Nakayama, Yoshiharu ^b   Goto, Taiga ^d   Omi, Yasuo ^d   Shimonobo, Toshiaki ^c   Liu, Duo ^b   Yamashita, Yasuyuki ^b   Hori, Shinichi ^e  

^a Department of Medical Technology School of Health Sciences   (Japan)

^b KUMAMOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^c KUMAMOTO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Japan)

^d HITACHI LTD   (Japan)

^e GateTower Institute for Image Guided Therapy   (Japan)

^f KUMAMOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Adaptive noise reduction filter; Hepatic MDCT; Low contrast detectability; Low dose

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTRAST RADIOGRAPHY; EVALUATION; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; LIVER TUMOR; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; NOISE REDUCTION; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; LIVER CELL CARCINOMA; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; RADIOGRAPHY; ROC CURVE;

AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CARCINOMA, HEPATOCELLULAR; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIVER NEOPLASMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; ROC CURVE; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 33645082011     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.rli.0000188026.20172.5d     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Flohr TG, Schaller S, Stierstorfer K, et al. Multi-detector row CT systems and image-reconstruction techniques. Radiology. 2005;235:756-773.
2. Saini S. Multi-detector row CT: principles and practice for abdominal applications. Radiology. 2004;233:323-327.
3. Gerber TC, Stratmann BP, Kuzo RS, et al. Effect of acquisition technique on radiation dose and image quality in multidetector row computed tomography coronary angiography with submillimeter collimation. Invest Radiol. 2005;40:556-563.
4. Yamashita Y, Mitsuzaki K, Yi T, et al. Small hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic liver damage: prospective comparison of detection with dynamic MR imaging and helical CT of the whole liver. Radiology. 1996;200:79-84.
5. Kim T, Murakami T, Hori M, et al. Small hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma revealed by double arterial phase CT performed with single breath-hold scanning and automatic bolus tracking. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:899-904.
6. Foley WD, Mallisee TA, Hohenwalter MD, et al. Multiphase hepatic CT with a multirow detector CT scanner. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175:679-685.
7. Murakami T, Kim T, Takamura M, et al. Hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma: detection with double arterial phase multi-detector row helical CT. Radiology. 2001;218:763-767.
8. Heneghan JP, McGuire KA, Leder RA, et al. Helical CT for nephrolithiasis and ureterolithiasis: comparison of conventional and reduced radiation-dose techniques. Radiology. 2003;229:575-580.
9. Liu W, Esler SJ, Kenny BJ, et al. Low-dose nonenhanced helical CT of renal colic: assessment of ureteric stone detection and measurement of effective dose equivalent. Radiology. 2000;215:51-54.
10. Verdun FR, Denys A, Valley JF, et al. Detection of low-contrast objects: experimental comparison of single- and multi-detector row CT with a phantom. Radiology. 2002;223:426-431.
11. Gupta AK, Nelson RC, Johnson GA, et al. Optimization of eight-element multi-detector row helical CT technology for evaluation of the abdomen. Radiology. 2003;227:739-745.
12. Funama Y, Awai K, Miyazaki O, et al. A computer-simulated liver phantom (virtual liver phantom) for multidetector CT evaluation. Eur Radiol. In press.
13. Obuchowski NA. Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology. Radiology. 2003;229:3-8.
14. Partan G, Mayrhofer R, Urban M, et al. Diagnostic performance of liquid crystal and cathode-ray-tube monitors in brain computed tomography. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:2397-2401.
15. Harpen MD. A computer simulation of wavelet noise reduction in computed tomography. Med Phys. 1999;26:1600-1606.
16. Kalra MK, Prasad S, Saini S, et al. Clinical comparison of standard-dose and 50% reduced-dose abdominal CT: effect on image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:1101-1106.
17. Frush DP, Slack CC, Hollingsworth CL, et al. Computer-simulated radiation dose reduction for abdominal multidetector CT of pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:1107-1113.
18. Hu H, Shen Y. Helical CT reconstruction with longitudinal filtration. Med Phys. 1998;25:2130-2138.
19. Westin CF, Richolt J, Moharir V, et al. Affine adaptive filtering of CT data. Med Image Anal. 2000;4:161-177.
20. Baum U, Anders K, Steinbichler G, et al. Improvement of image quality of multislice spiral CT scans of the head and neck region using a raw data-based multidimensional adaptive filtering (MAF) technique. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:1873-1881.
21. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Sahani DV, et al. Low-dose CT of the abdomen: evaluation of image improvement with use of noise reduction filters pilot study. Radiology. 2003;228:251-256.
22. Pratt WK. Digital Image Processing. New York: Wiley-Interscinece Publication; 1991.
23. Kachelriess M, Watzke O, Kalender WA. Generalized multi-dimensional adaptive filtering for conventional and spiral single-slice, multi-slice, and cone-beam CT. Med Phys. 2001;28:475-490.
24. Hamberg LM, Rhea JT, Hunter GJ, et al. Multi-detector row CT: radiation dose characteristics. Radiology. 2003;226:762-772.
25. Nickoloff EL, Dutta AK, Lu ZF. Influence of phantom diameter, kVp and scan mode upon computed tomography dose index. Med Phys. 2003;30:395-402.
26. Sigal-Cinqualbre AB, Hennequin R, Abada HT, et al. Low-kilovoltage multi-detector row chest CT in adults: feasibility and effect on image quality and iodine dose. Radiology. 2004;231:169-174.