Iterative reconstruction algorithm for abdominal multidetector CT at different tube voltages: Assessment of diagnostic accuracy, image quality, and radiation dose in a phantom study

Radiology

Volumn 260, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 454-462

  Schindera, Sebastian T ^a   Diedrichsen, Lars ^a   Müller, Hubert C ^a   Rusch, Oliver ^a   Marin, Daniele ^b   Schmidt, Bernhard ^c   Raupach, Rainer ^c   Vock, Peter ^a   Szucs Farkas, Zsolt ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c SIEMENS AG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL RADIOGRAPHY; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FILTERED BACK PROJECTION ALGORITHM; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; ITERATIVE RECONSTRUCTION ALGORITHM; LIVER PARENCHYMA; LIVER TUMOR; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; VOLUMETRY;

ALGORITHMS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; HUMANS; LIVER NEOPLASMS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RADIOGRAPHY, ABDOMINAL; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 79960687077     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11102217     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357(22):2277-2284. (Pubitemid 350190758)
2. Berrington de González A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 2009;169(22):2071-2077.
3. Marin D, Nelson RC, Schindera ST, et al. Low-tube-voltage, high-tube-current multidetector abdominal CT: improved image quality and decreased radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm-initial clinical experience. Radiology 2010;254(1):145-153.
4. Hara AK, Paden RG, Silva AC, Kujak JL, Lawder HJ, Pavlicek W. Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(3):764-771.
5. Flicek KT, Hara AK, Silva AC, Wu Q, Peter MB, Johnson CD. Reducing the radiation dose for CT colonography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: a pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195(1): 126-131.
6. Prakash P, Kalra MK, Kambadakone AK, et al. Reducing abdominal CT radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Invest Radiol 2010;45(4): 202-210.
7. Singh S, Kalra MK, Hsieh J, et al. Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 2010;257(2):373-383.
8. Menke J. Comparison of different body size parameters for individual dose adaptation in body CT of adults. Radiology 2005;236(2): 565-571. (Pubitemid 41023441)
9. Pontana F, Pagniez J, Flohr T, et al. Chest computed tomography using iterative reconstruction vs filtered back projection. I. Evaluation of image noise reduction in 32 patients. Eur Radiol 2011;21(3):627-635.
10. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33(1):159-174. (Pubitemid 8054849)
11. Sardanelli F, Hunink MG, Gilbert FJ, Di Leo G, Krestin GP. Evidence-based radiology: why and how? Eur Radiol 2010;20(1): 1-15.
12. Schindera ST, Nelson RC, Mukundan S Jr, et al. Hypervascular liver tumors: low tube voltage, high tube current multi-detector row CT for enhanced detection - phantom study. Radiology 2008;246(1):125-132. (Pubitemid 350305035)
13. Robinson E, Babb J, Chandarana H, Macari M. Dual source dual energy MDCT: comparison of 80 kVp and weighted average 120 kVp data for conspicuity of hypo-vascular liver metastases. Invest Radiol 2010;45(7): 413-418.