Comparison of filtered back projection and iterative reconstruction in diagnosing appendicitis at 2-mSv CT

Abdominal Radiology

Volumn 41, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 1227-1236

  Park, Ji Hoon ^a   Kim, Bohyoung ^a   Kim, Mi Sung ^b   Kim, Hyuk Jung ^c   Ko, Yousun ^a   Ahn, Soyeon ^a   Karul, Murat ^d   Fletcher, Joel G ^e   Lee, Kyoung Ho ^a,f  

^a Seoul National University Bundang Hospital   (South Korea)

^b School of Medicine   (South Korea)

^c Bundang Jesaeng Hospital   (South Korea)

^d UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER HAMBURG EPPENDORF   (Germany)

^e MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^f Seoul National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Appendicitis; Computer assisted; Image processing; Iterative reconstruction; ROC curve; Tomography; X ray computed

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; APPENDICITIS; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIKERT SCALE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION EQUIPMENT; RADIOLOGIST; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; YOUNG ADULT; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; PROCEDURES; X-RAY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; APPENDICITIS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84975761200     PISSN: 2366004X     EISSN: 23660058     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00261-015-0632-4     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Drake FT, Florence MG, Johnson MG, et al. (2012) Progress in the diagnosis of appendicitis: a report from Washington State’s Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program. Ann Surg 256:586–594
2. Raja AS, Wright C, Sodickson AD, et al. (2010) Negative appendectomy rate in the era of CT: an 18-year perspective. Radiology 256:460–465
3. Coursey CA, Nelson RC, Patel MB, et al. (2010) Making the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: do more preoperative CT scans mean fewer negative appendectomies? A 10-year study. Radiology 254:460–468
4. Park JH (2014) Diagnostic imaging utilization in cases of acute appendicitis: multi-center experience. J Korean Med Sci 29:1308–1316
5. Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, Tauxe RV (1990) The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 132:910–925
6. Rhea JT, Halpern EF, Ptak T, et al. (2005) The status of appendiceal CT in an urban medical center 5 years after its introduction: experience with 753 patients. Am J Roentgenol 184:1802–1808
7. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, et al. (2009) Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 169:2071–2077
8. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography-an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284
9. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, et al. (2009) Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med 169:2078–2086
10. Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, et al. (2012) Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 380:499–505
11. Berlin L (2011) To order or not to order a CT examination because of radiation exposure: that is the question. Am J Roentgenol 196:W216
12. Kim SY, Lee KH, Kim K, et al. (2011) Acute appendicitis in young adults: low- versus standard-radiation-dose contrast-enhanced abdominal CT for diagnosis. Radiology 260:437–445
13. Seo H, Lee KH, Kim HJ, et al. (2009) Diagnosis of acute appendicitis with sliding slab ray-sum interpretation of low-dose unenhanced CT and standard-dose i.v. contrast-enhanced CT scans. Am J Roentgenol 193:96–105
14. Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY, et al. (2012) Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med 366:1596–1605
15. Keyzer C, Tack D, de Maertelaer V, et al. (2004) Acute appendicitis: comparison of low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced multi-detector row CT. Radiology 232:164–172
16. Kulkarni NM, Uppot RN, Eisner BH, Sahani DV (2012) Radiation dose reduction at multidetector CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction for evaluation of urolithiasis: how low can we go? Radiology 265:158–166
17. Mitsumori LM, Shuman WP, Busey JM, Kolokythas O, Koprowicz KM (2012) Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction versus filtered back projection in the same patient: 64 channel liver CT image quality and patient radiation dose. Eur Radiol 22:138–143
18. Willemink MJ, Leiner T, de Jong PA, et al. (2013) Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography part 2: initial results in dose reduction and image quality. Eur Radiol 23:1632–1642
19. Ehman EC, Yu L, Manduca A, et al. (2014) Methods for clinical evaluation of noise reduction techniques in abdominopelvic CT. Radiographics 34:849–862
20. Goenka AH, Herts BR, Obuchowski NA, et al. (2014) 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 272:154–163
21. Pickhardt PJ, Lubner MG, Kim DH, et al. (2012) Abdominal CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging. Am J Roentgenol 199:1266–1274
22. Schindera ST, Odedra D, Raza SA, et al. (2013) Iterative reconstruction algorithm for CT: can radiation dose be decreased while low-contrast detectability is preserved? Radiology 269:511–518
23. Padole A, Ali Khawaja RD, Kalra MK, Singh S (2015) CT radiation dose and iterative reconstruction techniques. Am J Roentgenol 204:W384–W392
24. Ahn S, LOCAT Group (2014) LOCAT (low-dose computed tomography for appendicitis trial) comparing clinical outcomes following low- vs standard-dose computed tomography as the first-line imaging test in adolescents and young adults with suspected acute appendicitis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 15:28
25. Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA (2010) Multisection CT protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology 257:158–166
26. Soni NK, Cohn NA (2009) Strategies to reduce radiation dose in Philips multidetector computed tomography scanners. In: Mahesh M (ed) MDCT physics: the basics—technology, image quality and radiation dose, 1st edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp 125–130
27. Scibelli A (2013) iDose4 iterative reconstruction technique. Philips Healthcare Whitepaper. https://www.healthcare.philips.com/pwc_hc/main/shared/Assets/Documents/ct/idose_white_paper_452296267841.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2013
28. Lee KH, Lee HJ, Kim JH, et al. (2005) Managing the CT data explosion: initial experiences of archiving volumetric datasets in a mini-PACS. J Digit Imaging 18:188–195
29. Lee YJ, Kim B, Ko Y, et al. (2015) Low-dose (2-mSv) CT in adolescents and young adults with suspected appendicitis: advantages of additional review of thin sections using multiplanar sliding-slab averaging technique. Am J Roentgenol 205:W485–W491
30. Joo SM, Lee KH, Kim YH, et al. (2009) Detection of the normal appendix with low-dose unenhanced CT: use of the sliding slab averaging technique. Radiology 251:780–787
31. Menzel H, Schibilla H, Teunen D (2000) European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. EUR 16262 EN, European Commission, Luxembourg
32. Rosai J, Ackerman LV (2011) Appendix. In: Rosai J (ed) Rosai and Ackerman’s surgical pathology, 10th edn. St. Louis: Mosby, pp 714–718
33. Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Noffsinger AE, Stemmermann GN, Lantz PE, Isaacson PG (2008) Nonneoplastic diseases of the appendix. In: Fenoglio-Preiser CM (ed) Gastrointestinal pathology, 3rd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp 504–505
34. Newcombe RG (1998) Improved confidence intervals for the difference between binomial proportions based on paired data. Stat Med 17:2635–2650
35. Gallas BD (2006) One-shot estimate of MRMC variance: AUC. Acad Radiol 13:353–362
36. Obuchowski NA, Gallas BD, Hillis SL (2012) Multi-reader ROC studies with split-plot designs: a comparison of statistical methods. Acad Radiol 19:1508–1517
37. Daly CP, Cohan RH, Francis IR, et al. (2005) Incidence of acute appendicitis in patients with equivocal CT findings. Am J Roentgenol 184:1813–1820
38. Lee H, Kim B, Kim KJ, et al. (2011) Introduction of heat map to fidelity assessment of compressed CT images. Med Phys 38:4667–4671
39. Alvarado A (1986) A practical score for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med 15:557–564
40. Andersson M, Andersson RE (2008) The appendicitis inflammatory response score: a tool for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis that outperforms the Alvarado score. World J Surg 32:1843–1849
41. Didier RA, Vajtai PL, Hopkins KL (2015) Iterative reconstruction technique with reduced volume CT dose index: diagnostic accuracy in pediatric acute appendicitis. Pediatr Radiol 45:181–187
42. Kim SH, Yoon JH, Lee JH, et al. (2014) Low-dose CT for patients with clinically suspected acute appendicitis: optimal strength of sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction for image quality and diagnostic performance. Acta Radiol. doi:10.1177/0284185114542297
43. Callahan MJ, Kleinman PL, Strauss KJ, et al. (2015) Pediatric CT dose reduction for suspected appendicitis: a practice quality improvement project using artificial Gaussian noise–part 1, computer simulations. Am J Roentgenol 204:W86–W94
44. Swanick CW, Gaca AM, Hollingsworth CL, et al. (2013) Comparison of conventional and simulated reduced-tube current MDCT for evaluation of suspected appendicitis in the pediatric population. Am J Roentgenol 201:651–658
45. Ahn S, Park SH, Lee KH (2013) How to demonstrate similarity by using noninferiority and equivalence statistical testing in radiology research. Radiology 267:328–338