The use of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in pediatric head CT: A feasibility study

American Journal of Neuroradiology

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 205-211

  Vorona, G A ^a   Zuccoli, G ^b   Sutcavage, T ^b   Clayton, B L ^b   Ceschin, R C ^b   Panigrahy, A ^b  

^a ALLEGHENY GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b CHILDREN S HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ADAPTIVE STATISTICAL ITERATIVE RECONSTRUCTION; ARTICLE; BRAIN VENTRICLE PERITONEUM SHUNT; CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NEUROIMAGING; RADIATION DOSE; SCHOOL CHILD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ALGORITHMS; BRAIN; CHILD; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; HEAD; HUMANS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84873648140     PISSN: 01956108     EISSN: 1936959X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3122     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Mettler F, Thomadsen B, Bhargavan M, et al. Medical radiation exposure in the U.S. in 2006: preliminary results. Health Phys 2008;95:502-07
2. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Mahesh M, Kim K, et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomography scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:2071-77
3. Strauss K, Goske M, Kaste S, et al. Image gently: ten steps you can take to optimize image quality and lower CT dose for pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:868-73
4. Goske M, Applegate K, Bulas D, et al. Image gently: progress and challenges in CT education and advocacy. Pediatr Radiol 2011; 41(suppl 2):461-66
5. Larson D, Johnson L, Schnell B, et al. Rising use of CT in child visits to the emergency department in the United States, 1995-2008. Radiology 2011;259:793-801
6. Karlsson P, Holmberg E, Lundell M, et al. Intracranial tumors after exposure to ionizing radiation during infancy: a pooled analysis of two Swedish cohorts of 28,008 infants with skin hemangioma. Radiat Res 1998;150:357-64
7. Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, et al. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:289-96
8. Michel M, Jacob S, Roger G, et al. Eye lens radiation exposure and repeated head CT scans: a problem to keep in mind. Eur J Radiol 2011 April 11. [Epub ahead of print]
9. Fleischmann D, Boas F. Computed tomography: old ideas and new technology. Eur Radiol 2011;21:510-17
10. Prakash P, Kalra M, Ackman J, et al. Diffuse lung disease: CT of the chest with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Radiology 2010;256:261-69
11. Prakash P, Kalra M, Digumarthy S, et al. Radiation dose reduction with chest computed tomography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: initial experience. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2010;34:40-45
12. Prakash P, Kalra M, Kamboadake A, et al. Reducing abdominal CT radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Invest Radiol 2010;45:202-10
13. Sagara Y, Hara A, Pavlicek W. 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;195:713-19
14. Hara AK, Paden RG, Silva AG. Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:764-71
15. Gosling O, Loader R, Venables P. A comparison of radiation dose between state of the art multislice CT coronary angiography with iterative reconstruction, multislice CT coronary angiography with standard filtered back-projection, and invasive diagnostic coronary angiography. Heart 2010;96:922-26
16. Heilbron BG, Leipsic J. Submillisievert coronary computed tomography angiography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: a new reality. Can J Cardiol 2010;26:35-36
17. Leipsic J, Labounty M, Heilbron B, et al. Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: assessment of image noise and image quality in coronary CT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195:649-54
18. Cornfield D, Isreal G, Detroy E, et al. Impact of Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction (ASIR) on radiation dose and imagine quality in aortic dissection studies: a qualitative and quantitative analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:W336-40
19. Vorona G, Ceschin R, Clayton B, et al. Reducing abdominal CT radiation dose with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique in children: a feasibility study. Pediar Radiol 2011;41: 1174-82
20. Mieville F, Gundinchet F, Rizzo E, et al. Paediatric cardiac CT examinations: impact of the iterative reconstruction method ASIR on image quality-preliminary findings. Pediatr Radiol 2011;41: 1154-64
21. Kilic K, Erbas G, Guryildirim M. Lowering the dose in head CT using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:1578-82
22. Korn A, Fenchel M, Bender B. Iterative reconstruction in head CT: image quality of routine and low-dose protocols in comparison with standard filtered back-projection. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:218-24
23. Kleinman P, Strauss K, Zurakowski, et al. Patient size on CT images as a function of age at a tertiary care children's hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194: 1611-17
24. American College of Radiology. CT Accreditation Phantom Instructions, October 2011. http://www.acr.org/accreditation/computed/qc-forms/Phantom- Testing-Instruction-Final.aspx. Accessed December 28, 2011
25. Kanal K, Vavilala M, Raelson C, et al. Variation in pediatric head CT imaging protocols in Washington state. J Am Coll Radiol 2011;8: 242-50
26. Udayasankar U, Braithwaite K, Arvantiti M, et al. Low-dose nonenhanced head CT protocol for follow-up evaluation of children with ventriculoperitoneal shunt: reduction of radiation and effect on image quality. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:802-06
27. Hopper K,NeumanJ, King S, et al. Radioprotection to the eye during CT scanning. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22:1194-98
28. Smith B, Dillon W, Gould R, et al. Radiation dose-reduction strategies for neuroradiology CT protocols. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;28:1628-32
29. Toth T, Hsieh J. Strategies to reduce radiation dose in CT; GE Healthcare MDCT scanner strategies to reduce radiation dose. In: Mahesh M. MDCT Physics: The Basics. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009:115-24
30. Papadakis A, Perisinakis K, Oikonomou I, et al. Automatic exposure control in pediatric and adult computed tomography examinations: can we estimate organ and effective dose from mean mAs reduction? Invest Radiol 2011;46:654-62
31. Marin D, Nelson R, Schindera S, 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;254:145-53
32. Kambadakone A, Chaudhary N, Desai G, et al. Low-Dose MDCT and CT enterography of patients withCrohndisease: feasibility of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:W743-52
33. Smith A, Dillon W, Lau B, et al. Radiation dose reduction strategy for CT protocols: successful implementation in neuroradiology section. Radiology 2008;247:499-506