A Knowledge-based Iterative Model Reconstruction Algorithm. Can Super-Low-Dose Cardiac CT Be Applicable in Clinical Settings?

Academic Radiology

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 104-110

  Oda, Seitaro ^a   Utsunomiya, Daisuke ^a   Funama, Yoshinori ^a   Katahira, Kazuhiro ^b   Honda, Keiichi ^b   Tokuyasu, Shinichi ^c   Vembar, Mani ^d   Yuki, Hideaki ^a   Noda, Katsuo ^b   Oshima, Shuichi ^b   Yamashita, Yasuyuki ^a  

^a KUMAMOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b KUMAMOTO CHUO HOSPITAL   (Japan)

^c PHILIPS RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (Germany)

^d PHILIPS HEALTHCARE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cardiac CT; Image quality; Iterative reconstruction; Radiation dose

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; BODY MASS; BODY WEIGHT; CARDIAC IMAGING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; ELECTROCARDIOGRAM; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HEART RATE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; IMAGING AND DISPLAY; ITERATIVE RECONSTRUCTION; LEFT CORONARY ARTERY; LOW ENERGY RADIATION; MALE; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION DOSE REDUCTION; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIOLOGY PHANTOM; RIGHT CORONARY ARTERY; SYSTOLE;

CARDIAC CT; IMAGE QUALITY; ITERATIVE RECONSTRUCTION; RADIATION DOSE;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84890154742     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: 18784046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2013.10.002     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Taylor A.J., Cerqueira M., Hodgson J.M., et al. ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. Circulation 2010, 122:e525-e555.
2. Budoff M.J., Dowe D., Jollis J.G., et al. Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008, 52:1724-1732.
3. Miller J.M., Rochitte C.E., Dewey M., et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med 2008, 359:2324-2336.
4. Einstein A.J., Henzlova M.J., Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007, 298:317-323.
5. Hausleiter J., Meyer T., Hermann F., et al. Estimated radiation dose associated with cardiac CT angiography. JAMA 2009, 301:500-507.
6. Hausleiter J., Meyer T., Hadamitzky M., et al. Radiation dose estimates from cardiac multislice computed tomography in daily practice: impact of different scanning protocols on effective dose estimates. Circulation 2006, 113:1305-1310.
7. Shuman W.P., Branch K.R., May J.M., et al. Prospective versus retrospective ECG gating for 64-detector CT of the coronary arteries: comparison of image quality and patient radiation dose. Radiology 2008, 248(2):431-437.
8. Hirai N., Horiguchi J., Fujioka C., et al. Prospective versus retrospective ECG-gated 64-detector coronary CT angiography: assessment of image quality, stenosis, and radiation dose. Radiology 2008, 248(2):424-430.
9. Silva A.C., Lawder H.J., Hara A., et al. Innovations in CT dose reduction strategy: application of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010, 194(1):191-199.
10. Sagara Y., Hara A.K., Pavlicek W., et al. 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(3):713-719.
11. Nakaura T., Nakamura S., Maruyama N., et al. Low contrast agent and radiation dose protocol for hepatic dynamic CT of thin adults at 256-detector row CT: effect of low tube voltage and hybrid iterative reconstruction algorithm on image quality. Radiology 2012, 264(2):445-454.
12. Cademartiri F., Nieman K., van der Lugt A., et al. Intravenous contrast material administration at 16-detector row helical CT coronary angiography: test bolus versus bolus-tracking technique. Radiology 2004, 233(3):817-823.
13. Abada H.T., Larchez C., Daoud B., et al. MDCT of the coronary arteries: feasibility of low-dose CT with ECG-pulsed tube current modulation to reduce radiation dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006, 186:S387-S390.
14. Oda S., Utsunomiya D., Funama Y., et al. A low tube voltage technique reduces the radiation dose at retrospective ECG-gated cardiac computed tomography for anatomical and functional analyses. Acad Radiol 2011, 18(8):991-999.
15. Schoenhagen P. Back to the future: coronary CT angiography using prospective ECG triggering. Eur Heart J 2008, 29(2):153-154.
16. Klass O., Jeltsch M., Feuerlein S., et al. Prospectively gated axial CT coronary angiography: preliminary experiences with a novel low-dose technique. Eur Radiol 2009, 19(4):829-836.
17. Husmann L., Valenta I., Gaemperli O., et al. Feasibility of low-dose coronary CT angiography: first experience with prospective ECG-gating. Eur Heart J 2008, 29(2):191-197.
18. Katsura M., Matsuda I., Akahane M., et al. Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: comparison with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Eur Radiol 2012, 22(8):1613-1623.
19. Singh S., Kalra M.K., Do S., et al. Comparison of hybrid and pure iterative reconstruction techniques with conventional filtered back projection: dose reduction potential in the abdomen. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2012, 36(3):347-353.
20. Scheffel H., Stolzmann P., Schlett C.L., et al. Coronary artery plaques: cardiac CT with model-based and adaptive-statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Eur J Radiol 2012, 81(3):e363-e369.
21. Boone J.M. Determination of the presampled MTF in computed tomography. Med Phys 2001, 28(3):356-360.
22. Siewerdsen J.H., Cunningham I.A., Jaffray D.A. A framework for noise-power spectrum analysis of multidimensional images. Med Phys 2002, 29(11):2655-2671.
23. McCollough C.H., Chen G.H., Kalender W., et al. Achieving routine submillisievert CT scanning: report from the summit on management of radiation dose in CT. Radiology 2012, 264(2):567-580.