Standard and reduced radiation dose liver CT images: Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction versus model-based iterative reconstruction-comparison of findings and image quality

Radiology

Volumn 273, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 793-800

  Shuman, William P ^a   Chan, Keith T ^a   Busey, Janet M ^a   Mitsumori, Lee M ^a   Choi, Eunice ^a   Koprowicz, Kent M ^a   Kanal, Kalpana M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE STATISTICAL ITERATIVE RECONSTRUCTION; ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; FEMALE; HEPATOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; LIVER CELL CARCINOMA; MALE; MODEL BASED ITERATIVE RECONSTRUCTION; PORTAL VEIN; RADIATION DOSE REDUCTION; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC USE; LIVER DISEASE; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY;

CONTRAST MEDIUM; IOHEXOL;

ADULT; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; IOHEXOL; LIVER DISEASES; MALE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84916624609     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14140676     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Hsieh J. Computed tomography: Principles, design, artifacts, and recent advances. 2nd ed. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE/Wiley, 2009; 102-112
2. Vardhanabhuti V, Loader RJ, Mitchell GR, Riordan RD, Roobottom CA. Image quality assessment of standard- and low-dose chest CT using filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and novel model-based iterative reconstruction algorithms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200(3):545-552
3. 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
4. Deák Z, Grimm JM, Treitl M, et al. Filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and a model-based iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT: An experimental clinical study. Radiology 2013;266(1):197-206
5. Shuman WP, Green DE, Busey JM, et al. Model-based iterative reconstruction versus adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection in liver 64- MDCT: Focal lesion detection, lesion conspicuity, and image noise. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200(5):1071-1076
6. Chang W, Lee JM, Lee K, et al. Assessment of a model-based, iterative reconstruction algorithm (MBIR) regarding image quality and dose reduction in liver computed tomography. Invest Radiol 2013;48(8):598-606
7. 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
8. Nelson RC, Feuerlein S, Boll DT. New iterative reconstruction techniques for cardiovascular computed tomography: How do they work, and what are the advantages and disadvantages? J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2011;5(5):286-292
9. Katsura M, Sato J, Akahane M, et al. Comparison of pure and hybrid iterative reconstruction techniques with conventional filtered back projection: Image quality assessment in the cervicothoracic region. Eur J Radiol 2013;82(2):356-360
10. AAPM Task Group 204. Size specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult CT examinations. http://www.aapm.org/pubs/ reports/rpt-204.pdf. Published 2011. Accessed May 2014
11. Yu Z, Thibault JB, Bouman CA, Sauer KD, Hsieh J. Fast model-based x-ray CT reconstruction using spatially nonhomogeneous ICD optimization. IEEE Trans Image Process 2011;20(1):161-175
12. Thibault JB, Sauer KD, Bouman CA, Hsieh J. A three-dimensional statistical approach to improved image quality for multislice helical CT. Med Phys 2007;34(11):4526-4544
13. Husarik DB, Marin D, Samei E, et al. Radiation dose reduction in abdominal computed tomography during the late hepatic arterial phase using a model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm: How low can we go? Invest Radiol 2012;47(8):468-474
14. Lin X, Tanaka I, Li J, Ueno E, Shen Y, Chen K. Dose reduction potential with advanced reconstruction algorithms: Assessment of image noise and image quality in abdominal CT [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2011; 228
15. O'Neill S, McWilliams SR, O'Neill F, et al. A quantitative comparison of model-based iterative reconstruction, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and filtered back projection for abdominal CT [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2011; 211
16. Kanal KM, Stewart BK, Kolokythas O, Shuman WP. Impact of operator-selected image noise index and reconstruction slice thickness on patient radiation dose in 64-MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189(1):219-225
17. Volders D, Bols A, Haspeslagh M, Coenegrachts K. Model-based iterative reconstruction and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominal CT: Comparison of image quality in the detection of colorectal liver metastases. Radiology 2013;269(2):469-474
18. Singh S, Kalra MK, 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.