Observer performance in the detection and classification of malignant hepatic nodules and masses with CT image-space denoising and iterative reconstruction

Radiology

Volumn 276, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 465-478

  Fletcher, Joel G ^a   Yu, Lifeng ^a   Li, Zhoubo ^a   Manduca, Armando ^b   Blezek, Daniel J ^a   Hough, David M ^a   Venkatesh, Sudhakar K ^a   Brickner, Gregory C ^a   Cernigliaro, Joseph C ^c   Hara, Amy K ^d   Fidler, Jeff L ^a   Lake, David S ^b   Shiung, Maria ^a   Lewis, David ^a   Leng, Shuai ^a   Augustine, Kurt E ^b   Carter, Rickey E ^a   Holmes, David R ^b   McCollough, Cynthia H ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^b MAYO GRADUATE SCHOOL   (United States)

^c MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^d MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

IOHEXOL;

ADAPTIVE IMAGE BASED NOISE REDUCTION; ARTICLE; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FILTERED BACK PROJECTION; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; LIVER CANCER; LIVER INJURY; LIVER NODULE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; NOISE REDUCTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE REDUCTION; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SINOGRAM AFFIRMED ITERATIVE RECONSTRUCTION; ADULT; AGED; CLASSIFICATION; FEMALE; IMAGE PROCESSING; LIVER NEOPLASMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LIVER NEOPLASMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84938692989     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015141991     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Journy N, Rehel JL, Ducou Le Pointe H, et al. Are the studies on cancer risk from CT scans biased by indication? Elements of answer from a large-scale cohort study in France. Br J Cancer 2015;112(1):185-193.
2. Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, et al. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2012;380(9840):499-505.
3. McCollough CH, Guimarães L, Fletcher JG. In defense of body CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(1):28-39.
4. Marin D, Nelson RC, Rubin GD, Schindera ST. Body CT: technical advances for improving safety. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197(1):33-41.
5. American College of Radiology. ACR appropriateness criteria. http://www.acr.org/quality-safety/appropriateness-criteria. Published 2013. Accessed March 25, 2014.
6. Yu L, Liu X, Leng S, et al. Radiation dose reduction in computed tomography: techniques and future perspective. Imaging Med 2009;1(1):65-84.
7. Yu L, Fletcher JG, Grant KL, et al. Automatic selection of tube potential for radiation dose reduction in vascular and contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;201(2):W297-W306.
8. Yu L, Bruesewitz MR, Thomas KB, Fletcher JG, Kofler JM, McCollough CH. Optimal tube potential for radiation dose reduction in pediatric CT: principles, clinical implementations, and pitfalls. RadioGraphics 2011;31(3):835-848.
9. Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY, et al. Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med 2012;366(17):1596-1605.
10. Kambadakone AR, Prakash P, Hahn PF, Sahani DV. Low-dose CT examinations in Crohn's disease: impact on image quality, diagnostic performance, and radiation dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195(1):78-88.
11. 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.
12. Niemann T, Kollmann T, Bongartz G. Diagnostic performance of low-dose CT for the detection of urolithiasis: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;191(2):396-401.
13. Sagara Y, Hara AK, Pavlicek W, Silva AC, Paden RG, Wu Q. 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(3):713-719.
14. Prakash P, Kalra MK, Kambadakone AK, et al. Reducing abdominal CT radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Invest Radiol 2010;45(4):202-210.
15. Lee SJ, Park SH, Kim AY, et al. A prospective comparison of standard-dose CT enterography and 50% reduced-dose CT enterography with and without noise reduction for evaluating Crohn disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197(1):50-57.
16. Yu MH, Lee JM, Yoon JH, et al. Low tube voltage intermediate tube current liver MDCT: sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction algorithm for detection of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;201(1):23-32.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Goenka AH, Herts BR, Obuchowski NA, et al. 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 2014;272(1):154-163.
21. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Blake MA, et al. Detection and characterization of lesions on low-radiation-dose abdominal CT images postprocessed with noise reduction filters. Radiology 2004;232(3):791-797.
22. 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.
23. Ehman EC, Yu L, Manduca A, et al. Methods for clinical evaluation of noise reduction techniques in abdominopelvic CT. RadioGraphics 2014;34(4):849-862.
24. 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.
25. Hough DM, Fletcher JG, Grant KL, et al. Lowering kilovoltage to reduce radiation dose in contrast-enhanced abdominal CT: initial assessment of a prototype automated kilovoltage selection tool. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;199(5):1070-1077.
26. Yu L, Shiung M, Jondal D, McCollough CH. Development and validation of a practical lower-dose-simulation tool for optimizing computed tomography scan protocols. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2012;36(4):477-487.
27. Li Z, Yu L, Trzasko JD, et al. Adaptive nonlocal means filtering based on local noise level for CT denoising. Med Phys 2014;41(1):011908.
28. Froemming AT, Kawashima A, Takahashi N, et al. Individualized kV selection and tube current reduction in excretory phase computed tomography urography: potential for radiation dose reduction and the contribution of iterative reconstruction to image quality. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2013;37(4):551-559.
29. Wang J, Christner JA, Duan X, Leng S, Yu L, McCollough CH. Attenuation-based estimation of patient size for the purpose of size specific dose estimation in CT. II. Implementation on abdomen and thorax phantoms using cross sectional CT images and scanned projection radiograph images. Med Phys 2012;39(11):6772-6778.
30. Chen W, Petrick NA, Sahiner B. Hypothesis testing in noninferiority and equivalence MRMC ROC studies. Acad Radiol 2012;19(9):1158-1165.
31. Holmes DR III, Carter R, Augustine KE, et al. Development of a dedicated workstation to facilitate rapid performance of observer studies in low-dose CT [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2013; 139.
32. Chakraborty DP. Maximum likelihood analysis of free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) data. Med Phys 1989;16(4):561-568.
33. Chakraborty DP, Berbaum KS. Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation. Med Phys 2004;31(8):2313-2330.
34. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 1992;27(9):723-731.
35. Altekruse SF, McGlynn KA, Reichman ME. Hepatocellular carcinoma incidence, mortality, and survival trends in the United States from 1975 to 2005. J Clin Oncol 2009;27(9):1485-1491.
36. Child PW, Yan TD, Perera DS, Morris DL. Surveillance-detected hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer had a survival advantage in seven-year follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum 2005;48(4):744-748.
37. Haddad A, Kowdley GC, Pawlik TM, Cunningham SC. Hereditary pancreatic and hepatobiliary cancers. Int J Surg Oncol 2011;2011:154673.
38. Haddad AJ, Bani Hani M, Pawlik TM, Cunningham SC. Colorectal liver metastases. Int J Surg Oncol 2011;2011:285840.
39. Mazzaferro V, Chun YS, Poon RT, et al. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15(4):1001-1007.
40. Marin D, Choudhury KR, Gupta RT, et al. Clinical impact of an adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm for detection of hypervascular liver tumours using a low tube voltage, high tube current MDCT technique. Eur Radiol 2013;23(12):3325-3335.