Image noise and liver lesion detection with MDCT: A phantom study

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 197, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 437-441

  Kanal, Kalpana M ^a   Chung, Jonathan H ^a,b   Wang, Jin ^a   Bhargava, Puneet ^c   Kohr, Jennifer R ^a,d   Shuman, William P ^a   Stewart, Brent K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^d MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Automatic tube current modulation; Liver phantom; Low contrast lesion detection; MDCT; Noise index

Indexed keywords

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; LIVER INJURY; LIVER TUMOR; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO;

ALGORITHMS; AREA UNDER CURVE; HUMANS; LIVER NEOPLASMS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, SPIRAL COMPUTED;

EID: 79960708478     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.5726     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Baron RL. Understanding and optimizing use of contrast material for CT of the liver. AJR 1994; 163:323-331 (Pubitemid 24242512)
2. Awai K, Takada K, Onishi H, Hori S. Aortic and hepatic enhancement and tumor-to-liver-contrast: analysis of the effect of different concentrations of contrast material at multi-detector row helical CT. Radiology 2002; 224:757-763 (Pubitemid 34919809)
3. [No authors listed]. LightSpeed 7.X technical reference manual, direction 5116422-100, rev 2 (02/05). Waukesha, WI: GE Healthcare, 2005
4. Kanal KM, Stewart BK, Kolokythas O, Shuman WP. Impact of operator-selected image noise index and reconstruction slice thickness on patient radiation dose in 64-MDCT. AJR 2007; 189:219-225 (Pubitemid 46983214)
5. Noguchi Y, Murakami T, Kim T, et al. Detection of hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of dynamic MR imaging with dynamic double arterial phase helical CT. AJR 2003; 180:455-460 (Pubitemid 36135031)
6. Valls C, Cos M, Figueras J, et al. Pretransplantation diagnosis and staging of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: value of dualphase helical CT. AJR 2004; 182:1011-1017 (Pubitemid 38391666)
7. Lim JH, Kim CK, Lee WJ, et al. Detection of hepatocellular carcinomas and dysplastic nodules in cirrhotic livers: accuracy of helical CT in transplant patients. AJR 2000; 175:693-698
8. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Kamath RS, et al. Sixteen-detector row CT of abdomen and pelvis: study for optimization of z-axis modulation technique performed in 153 patients. Radiology 2004; 233:241-249 (Pubitemid 39280980)
9. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Blake MA, et al. Detection and characterization of lesions on low-radiation-dose abdominal CT images postprocessed with noise reduction filters. Radiology 2004; 232:791-797 (Pubitemid 39100265)
10. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Sahani DV, et al. Lowdose CT of the abdomen: evaluation of image improvement with use of noise reduction filters pilot study. Radiology 2003; 228:251-256 (Pubitemid 36736100)
11. Funama Y, Awai K, Nakayama Y, et al. Radiation dose reduction without degradation of low-contrast detectability at abdominal multisection CT with a low-tube voltage technique: phantom study. Radiology 2005; 237:905-910 (Pubitemid 41636380)