Adaptive iterative dose reduction 3d versus filtered back projection in CT: Evaluation of image quality

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 201, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 1291-1297

  Joemai, Raoul M S ^a   Veldkamp, Wouter J H ^a   Kroft, Lucia J M ^a   Hernandez Giron, Irene ^b   Geleijns, Jacob ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITAT ROVIRA I VIRGILI   (Spain)

Author keywords

CT; Image quality; Image reconstruction; Medical image processing; Radiation dose

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE ITERATIVE DOSE REDUCTION; ADULT; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT REDUCTION; CASE REPORT; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FILTERED BACK PROJECTION; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; IMAGING SOFTWARE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LOW CONTRAST DETECTABILITY; MALE; NOISE; NOISE POWER SPECTRUM; NOISE REDUCTION; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION ATTENUATION; RADIATION DOSE REDUCTION; SPATIAL RESOLUTION;

ALGORITHMS; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84888324569     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.9780     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Deak PD, Langner O, Lell M, et al. Effects of adaptive section collimation on patient radiation dose in multisection spiral CT. Radiology 2009; 252:140-147.
2. Noo F, Hoppe S, Dennerlein F, et al. A new scheme for view-dependent data differentiation in fan-beam and cone-beam computed tomography. Phys Med Biol 2007; 52:5393-5414.
3. Bittencourt MS, Schmidt B, Seltmann M, et al. Iterative reconstruction in image space (IRIS) in cardiac computed tomography: initial experience. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2011; 27:1081-1087.
4. Flicek KT, Hara AK, Silva AC, et al. Reducing the radiation dose for CT colonography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: A pilot study. AJR 2010; 195:126-131.
5. Gosling O, Loader R, Venables P, et al. A comparison of radiation doses 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; 96:922-926.
6. Leipsic J, Labounty TM, Heilbron B, et al. Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: Assessment of image noise and image quality in coronary CT angiography. AJR 2010; 195:649-654.
7. 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 2011; 196:[web]W336-W340.
8. Marin D, Nelson RC, Schindera ST, et al. Lowtube- 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; 254:145-153.
9. Singh S, Kalra MK, Hsieh J, et al. Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 2010; 257:373-383.
10. Schindera ST, Diedrichsen L, Muller HC, et al. 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 2011; 260:454-462.
11. Winklehner A, Karlo C, Puippe G, et al. Raw data- based iterative reconstruction in body CTA: evaluation of radiation dose saving potential. Eur Radiol 2011; 21:2521-2526.
12. Moscariello A, Takx RA, Schoepf UJ, et al. Coronary CT angiography: image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and potential for radiation dose reduction using a novel iterative image reconstruction technique-comparison with traditional filtered back projection. Eur Radiol 2011; 21:2130-2138.
13. Funama Y, Taguchi K, Utsunomiya D, et al. Combination of a low-tube-voltage technique with hybrid iterative reconstruction (iDose) algorithm at coronary computed tomographic angiography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2011; 35:480-485.
14. Habets J, Symersky P, de Mol BA, Mali WP, Leiner T, Budde RP. A novel iterative reconstruction algorithm allows reduced dose multidetector-row CT imaging of mechanical prosthetic heart valves. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2012; 28:1567-1575.
15. Gervaise 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.
16. Yamada Y, Jinzaki M, Hosokawa T, et al. Dose reduction in chest CT: comparison of the adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D, adaptive iterative dose reduction, and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81:4185-4195.
17. Yoo RE, Park EA, Lee W, et al. Image quality of adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D of coronary CT angiography of 640-slice CT: comparison with filtered back-projection. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2013; 29:669-676.
18. Ohno Y, Takenaka D, Kanda T, et al. Adaptive iterative dose reduction using 3D processing for reduced- And low-dose pulmonary CT: comparison with standard-dose CT for image noise reduction and radiological findings. AJR 2012; 199[web]:W477-W485.
19. Juri H, Matsuki M, Itou Y, et al. Initial experience with adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D to reduce radiation dose in computed tomographic urography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2013; 37:52-57.
20. Ghetti C, Ortenzia O, Serreli G. CT iterative reconstruction in image space: A phantom study. Phys Med 2012; 28:161-165.
21. Sagara Y, Hara AK, Pavlicek W, et al. Abdominal CT: comparison of low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routinedose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients. AJR 2010; 195:713-719.
22. Prakash P, Kalra MK, Ackman JB, et al. Diffuse lung disease: CT of the chest with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Radiology 2010; 256:261-269.
23. Yang Z, Zamyatin AA, Akino N. Effective datadomain noise and streak reduction for x-ray CT. In: 11th international meeting on fully three-dimensional image reconstruction in radiology and nuclear medicine 2011:290-296. Fully3D website.http://www.fully3d.org/2011/ Fully3D2011Proceedings.pdf Accessed August 5, 2013.
24. Yang Z, Silver MD, Noshi Y. Adaptive weighted anisotropic diffusion for computed tomography denoising. In: 11th international meeting on fully three-dimensional image reconstruction in radiology and nuclear medicine 2011:210-214. Fully3D website. http://www.fully3d.org/2011/Fully- 3D2011Proceedings.pdf Accessed August 5, 2013.
25. Boedeker KL, Cooper VN, McNitt-Gray MF. Application of the noise power spectrum in modern diagnostic MDCT. Part 1. Measurement of noise power spectra and noise equivalent quanta. Phys Med Biol 2007; 52:4027-4046.
26. Joemai RM, Geleijns J, Veldkamp WJ. Development and validation of a low dose simulator for computed tomography. Eur Radiol 2010; 20:958-966.
27. Richard S, Husarik DB, Yadava G, et al. Towards task-based assessment of CT performance: system and object MTF across different reconstruction algorithms. Med Phys 2012; 39:4115-4122.
28. Hernandez-Giron I, Geleijns J, Calzado A, et al. Automated assessment of low contrast sensitivity for CT systems using a model observer. Med Phys 2011; 38:S25-S35.
29. Beutel J, Kundel HL, Van Metter RL. Handbook of medical imaging. Volume 1. Physics and psychophysics. Bellingham, WA: SPIE, 2000.
30. Reiser I, Nishikawa RM. Identification of simulated microcalcifications in white noise and mammographic backgrounds. Med Phys 2006; 33:2905-2911.
31. Primak AN, McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, et al. Relationship between noise, dose, and pitch in cardiac multi-detector row CT. RadioGraphics 2006; 26:1785-1794.