Effect of reduced radiation exposure and iterative reconstruction on detection of low-contrast low-attenuation lesions in an anthropomorphic liver phantom: An 18-reader study

Radiology

Volumn 272, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 154-163

  Goenka, Ajit H ^a   Herts, Brian R ^a   Obuchowski, Nancy A ^a   Primak, Andrew N ^b   Dong, Frank ^a   Karim, Wadih ^a   Baker, Mark E ^a  

^a LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b SIEMENS CORPORATE RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM;

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DOSIMETRY; FILTERED BACK PROJECTION; HUMAN; IMAGING PHANTOM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIVER INJURY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION ATTENUATION; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION DOSE REDUCTION; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGIST; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SINOGRAM AFFIRMED ITERATIVE RECONSTRUCTION;

HUMANS; LIVER DISEASES; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RADIOGRAPHY, ABDOMINAL; SOFTWARE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84903737491     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14131928     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Rose A. Vision: human and electronic (optical physics and engineering). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 1974; 197.
2. Kanal KM, Chung JH, Wang J, et al. Image noise and liver lesion detection with MDCT: a phantom study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197(2):437-441.
3. Seltzer SE, Swensson RG, Nawfel RD, Lentini JF, Kazda I, Judy PF. Visualization and detection-localization on computed tomographic images. Invest Radiol 1991;26(4):285-294.
4. Baker ME, Dong F, Primak A, et al. Contrast-to-noise ratio and low-contrast object resolution on full- and low-dose MDCT: SAFIRE versus filtered back projection in a low-contrast object phantom and in the liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;199(1):8-18.
5. Kalra MK, Woisetschläger M, Dahlström N, et al. Radiation dose reduction with Sinogram Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction technique for abdominal computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2012;36(3):339-346.
6. Obuchowski NA. Nonparametric analysis of clustered ROC curve data. Biometrics 1997;53(2):567-578. (Pubitemid 27262219)
7. Ahn S, Park SH, Lee KH. How to demonstrate similarity by using noninferiority and equivalence statistical testing in radiology research. Radiology 2013;267(2):328-338.
8. Food and Drug Administration. U.S. FDA approval letter demonstrating use of a -0.05 non-inferiority margin. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/Recently- ApprovedDevices/ucm353734.htm. Last updated May 23, 2013. Accessed November 18, 2013.
9. Obuchowski NA. New methodological tools for multiple-reader ROC studies. Radiology 2007;243(1):10-12. (Pubitemid 46579691)
10. Goodenough DJ, Weaver KE. Factors related to low contrast resolution in CT scanners. Comput Radiol 1984;8(5):297-308. (Pubitemid 15218152)
11. McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, McNitt-Gray MF, et al. The phantom portion of the American College of Radiology (ACR) computed tomography (CT) accreditation program: practical tips, artifact examples, and pitfalls to avoid. Med Phys 2004;31(9):2423-2442. (Pubitemid 39287856)
12. von Falck C, Rodt T, Waldeck S, et al. A systematic approach towards the objective evaluation of low-contrast performance in MDCT: combination of a full-reference image fidelity metric and a software phantom. Eur J Radiol 2012;81(11):3166-3171.
13. Fletcher JG, Krueger WR, Hough DM, et al. Pilot study of detection, radiologist confidence and image quality with sinogramaffirmed iterative reconstruction at half-routine dose level. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2013;37(2):203-211.
14. Pickhardt PJ, Lubner MG, Kim DH, et al. Abdominal CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;199(6):1266-1274.
15. Funama Y, Awai K, Nakayama Y, et al. Radiation dose reduction without degradation of low-contrast detectability at abdominal multisection CT with a low-tube voltage technique: phantom study. Radiology 2005;237(3):905-910. (Pubitemid 41636380)
16. Allen BC, Baker ME, Einstein DM, et al. Effect of altering automatic exposure control settings and quality reference mAs on radiation dose, image quality, and diagnostic efficacy in MDCT enterography of active inflammatory Crohn's disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195(1):89-100.
17. Schindera ST, Odedra D, Raza SA, et al. Iterative reconstruction algorithm for CT: can radiation dose be decreased while low-contrast detectability is preserved? Radiology 2013;269(2):511-518.
18. Dobeli KL, Lewis SJ, Meikle SR, Thiele DL, Brennan PC. Noise-reducing algorithms do not necessarily provide superior dose optimisation for hepatic lesion detection with multidetector CT. Br J Radiol 2013;86(1023):20120500.
19. Schindera ST, Diedrichsen L, Müller 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(2):454-462.
20. Yu L, Leng S, Chen L, Kofler JM, Carter RE, McCollough CH. Prediction of human observer performance in a 2-alternative forced choice low-contrast detection task using channelized Hotelling observer: impact of radiation dose and reconstruction algorithms. Med Phys 2013;40(4):041908.
21. von Falck C, Galanski M, Shin HO. Informatics in radiology: sliding-thin-slab averaging for improved depiction of low-contrast lesions with radiation dose savings at thin-section CT. RadioGraphics 2010;30(2):317-326.