Initial experience with adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D to reduce radiation dose in computed tomographic urography

Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 52-57

  Juri, Hiroshi ^a   Matsuki, Mitsuru ^b   Itou, Yasushi ^c   Inada, Yuki ^a   Nakai, Go ^a   Azuma, Haruhito ^a   Narumi, Yoshifumi ^a  

^a OSAKA MEDICAL COLLEGE   (Japan)

^b KINKI UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^c KANSAI ROSAI HOSPITAL   (Japan)

Author keywords

CT urography; iterative reconstruction; radiation dose

Indexed keywords

COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSIS; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; ITERATIVE METHODS;

BODY MASS; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC UROGRAPHY; DOSE REDUCTION; IMAGE NOISE; ITERATIVE RECONSTRUCTION; LOW DOSE; MASS INDEX; UROGRAPHY; VISUAL EVALUATION;

DOSIMETRY;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; BLADDER; BODY MASS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC UROGRAPHY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DOSE RESPONSE; FEMALE; GLOMERULUS FILTRATION RATE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PSOAS MUSCLE; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIATION DOSE; RETROPERITONEAL FAT; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; UROGRAPHY;

EID: 84872935444     PISSN: 03638715     EISSN: 15323145     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e3182742c0e     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP, et al. Diagnostic CT scans: Assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology. 2004;231:393-398. (Pubitemid 38552895)
2. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Sahani DV, et al. Low dose CT of the abdomen: Evaluation of image improvement with use of noise reduction filtersVpilot study. Radiology. 2003;228:251-256. (Pubitemid 36736100)
3. Moscariello A, Takx RAP, Schoepf UJ, et al. Coronary CT angiography: Image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and potential for radiation dose reduction using a novel iterative image reconstruction techniqueVcomparison with traditional filtered back projection. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:2130-2138.
4. Honda O, Yanagawa M, Inoue A, et al. Image quality of multiplanar reconstruction of pulmonary CT scans using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. Br J Radiol. 2011;84:335-341.
5. Cornfeld D, Israel G, Detroy E, et al. Impact of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) on radiation dose and image quality in aortic dissection studies: A qualitative and quantitative analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:W336-W340.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Garvise A, Osemont B, Lecocq S, et al. CT image quality improvement using adaptive iterative dose reduction with wide-volume acquisition on 320-detector CT. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:295-301.
9. Van Der Molen AJ, Cowan NC, Mueller-Lisse CCA, et al. CT urography: definition, indications and techniques. A guideline for clinical practice. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:4-17.
10. Dillman JR, Caoili EM, Cohan RH. Multi-detector CT urography: A one-stop renal and urinary tract imaging modality. Abdom Imaging. 2007;32:519-529. (Pubitemid 47383876)
11. Jinzaki M, Matsumoto K, Kikuchi E, et al. Comparison of CTurography and excretory urography in the detection and localization of urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:1102-1109.
12. Caoili EM, Cohan RH, Korobkin M, et al. Urinary tract abnormalities: Initial experience with multi-detector row CT urography. Radiology. 2002;222:353-360. (Pubitemid 34106104)
13. Nawfel RD, Judy PF, Schleipman AR, et al. Patient radiation dose at CT urography and conventional urography. Radiology. 2004;232:126-132. (Pubitemid 38787827)
14. Eikefjord EN, Thorsen F, Rorvik J. Comparison of effective radiation doses in patients undergoing unenhanced MDCT and excretory urography for acute flank pain. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:934-939. (Pubitemid 46496922)
15. Vrtiska TJ, Hartman RP, Kofler JM, et al. Spatial resolution and radiation dose of a 64-MDCT scanner compared with published CT urography protocols. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;291:941-948.
16. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The Measurement, Reporting, and Management of Radiation Dose in CT: Report of AAPM Task Group 23 of the Diagnostic Imaging Council CT Committee. AAPM report no. 96. College Park, MD: American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 2008.
17. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography: An increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2277-2284. (Pubitemid 350190758)
18. Smith-Brindman 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.
19. Yanaga Y, Awai K, Funama Y, et al. Low-Dose MDCT Urography: feasibility study of low-tube-voltage technique and adaptive noise reduction filter. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:220-229.