Validation of dual-source single-tube reconstruction as a method to obtain half-dose images to evaluate radiation dose and noise reduction: Phantom and human assessment using CT colonography and sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE)

Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

Volumn 36, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 560-569

  Fletcher, Joel G ^a   Grant, Katharine L R ^b   Fidler, Jeff L ^a   Shiung, Maria ^a   Yu, Lifeng ^a   Wang, Jia ^b   Schmidt, Bernhard ^c   Allmendinger, Thomas ^c   McCollough, Cynthia H ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c SIEMENS AG   (Germany)

Author keywords

CT colonography; dose reduction; noise reduction

Indexed keywords

COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; ITERATIVE METHODS; NOISE ABATEMENT; QUALITY CONTROL; TUBES (COMPONENTS);

3D-IMAGES; CT COLONOGRAPHY; DOSE REDUCTION; DUAL SOURCE; ITERATIVE RECONSTRUCTION; PHANTOMS; SINGLE SOURCE; SINGLE TUBES; SINOGRAMS; SOURCE IMAGES;

PHANTOMS;

ARTICLE; BODY POSTURE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; DUAL SOURCE RECONSTRUCTION; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; NOISE REDUCTION; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOLOGIST; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SINGLE SOURCE RECONSTRUCTION; SINOGRAM AFFIRMED ITERATIVE RECONSTRUCTION; SUPINE POSITION; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; VALIDATION STUDY;

EID: 84866673170     PISSN: 03638715     EISSN: 15323145     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e318263cc1b     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomographyVan increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357: 2277-2284.
2. IMV. IMV Benchmark Report on CT. In: Young L, ed. Des Plaines, IL: IMV Medical Information Division, Inc.; 2006.
3. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria. Available at: http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality-safety/app-criteria/ pdf.aspx. Accessed August 11, 2010.
4. McCollough CH, Guimaraes L, Fletcher JG. In defense of body CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:28-39.
5. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States. Report No. 160. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2009.
6. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:2078-2086.
7. McFarland EG, Fletcher JG, Pickhardt P, et al. ACR Colon Cancer Committee white paper: status of CT colonography 2009. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6:756-772 e4.
8. Liedenbaum MH, Venema HW, Stoker J. Radiation dose in CT colonographyVtrends in time and differences between daily practice and screening protocols. Eur Radiol. 2008;18: 2222-2230.
9. Berrington de González A, Kim KP, Knudsen AB, et al. Radiation-related cancer risks from CT colonography screening: a risk-benefit analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196: 816-823.
10. Brenner DJ, Georgsson MA. Mass screening with CT colonography: should the radiation exposure be of concern? Gastroenterology. 2005;129:328-337.
11. Kalra MK, Naz N, Rizzo SM, et al. Computed tomography radiation dose optimization: scanning protocols and clinical applications of automatic exposure control. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2005;34:171-181.
12. McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM Jr. CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. Radiographics. 2006;26:503-512.
13. Yu L, Bruesewitz M, Thomas K, et al. Optimal tube potential for radiation dose reduction in pediatric CT: principles, clinical implementations, and pitfalls. Radiographics. 2011;31:835-848.
14. Yu L, Li H, Fletcher JG, et al. Automatic selection of tube potential for radiation dose reduction in CT: a general strategy. Med Phys. 2010;37:234-243.
15. Yu L, Liu X, Leng S, et al. Radiation dose reduction in CT: techniques and future perspective. Imaging in Medicine. 2009;1:65-84.
16. Bai M, Chen J, Raupach R, et al. Effect of nonlinear three-dimensional optimized reconstruction algorithm filter on image quality and radiation dose: validation on phantoms. Med Phys. 2009;36: 95-97.
17. Manduca A, Yu L, Trzasko JD, et al. Projection space denoising with bilateral filtering and CT noise modeling for dose reduction in CT. Med Phys. 2009;36:4911-4919.
18. Sagara Y, Hara AK, Pavlicek W, et al. Abdominal CT: comparison of low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:713-719.
19. Flicek KT, Hara AK, Silva AC, et al. Reducing the radiation dose for CT colonography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: a pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195: 126-131.
20. Baker M, Obuchowski N, Primak A, et al. Half dose sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) vs full dose and half-dose filtered back projection abdominal CT: a quantitative and multi-reader qualitative analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:8-18.
21. Prakash P, Kalra MK, Kambadakone AK, et al. Reducing abdominal CT radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Invest Radiol. 2010;45:202-210.
22. Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, et al. Detection of colorectal lesions: lower-dose multi-detector row helical CT colonograph compared with conventional colonoscopy. Radiology. 2003;229: 775-781.
23. Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, et al. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1207-1217.
24. van Gelder RE, Venema HW, Serlie IWO, et al. CT colonography at different radiation dose levels: feasibility of dose reduction1. Radiology. 2002;224:25.
25. Lee SJ, Park SH, Kim AY, et al. A prospective comparison of standard-dose CT enterography and 50% reduced-dose CT enterography with and without noise reduction for evaluating Crohn disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:50-57.