Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of the adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D algorithm on the detectability of low-contrast lesions and radiation dose repeatability in abdominal computed tomography: a phantom study

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the influence of the adaptive iterative dose reduction (AIDR 3D) algorithm on the detectability of low-contrast focal liver lesions (FLLs) and the radiation dose repeatability of automatic tube current modulation (ATCM) in abdominal CT scans using anthropomorphic phantoms.

Materials and Methods

Three different sizes of anthropomorphic phantoms, each with 4 low-contrast FLLs, were scanned on a 320-channel CT scanner using the ATCM technique and AIDR 3D, at different radiation doses: full-dose, half-dose, and quarter-dose. Scans were repeated three times and reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and AIDR 3D. Radiation dose repeatability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Image noise, quality, and lesion conspicuity were assessed by four reviewers and the number of invisible FLLs was compared among different radiation doses and reconstruction methods.

Results

ICCs of radiation dose among the three CT scans were excellent in all phantoms (0.99). Image noise, quality, and lesion conspicuity in the half-dose group were comparable with full-dose FBP after applying AIDR 3D in all phantoms. In small phantoms, the half-dose group reconstructed with AIDR 3D showed similar sensitivity in visualizing low-contrast FLLs compared to full-dose FBP (P = 0.77–0.84). In medium and large phantoms, AIDR 3D reduced the number of missing low-contrast FLLs [3.1% (9/288), 11.5% (33/288), respectively], compared to FBP [10.4% (30/288), 21.9% (63/288), respectively] in the full-dose group.

Conclusion

By applying AIDR 3D, half-dose CT scans may be achievable in small-sized patients without hampering diagnostic performance, while it may improve diagnostic performance in medium- and large-sized patients without increasing the radiation dose.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sodickson A, Baeyens PF, Andriole KP, et al. (2009) Recurrent CT, cumulative radiation exposure, and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from CT of adults. Radiology 251:175–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Mahesh M, Kim K-P, et al. (2009) Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 169:2071–2077

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM (2006) CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. Radiographics 26:503–512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Willemink MJ, de Jong PA, Leiner T, et al. (2013) Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography part 1: technical principles. Eur Radiol 23:1623–1631

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yu MH, Lee JM, Yoon J-H, et al. (2013) Low tube voltage intermediate tube current liver MDCT: sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction algorithm for detection of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 201:23–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chang W, Lee JM, Lee K, et al. (2013) Assessment of a model-based, iterative reconstruction algorithm (MBIR) regarding image quality and dose reduction in liver computed tomography. Invest Radiol 48:598–606

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Vardhanabhuti V, Riordan RD, Mitchell GR, Hyde C, Roobottom CA (2014) Image comparative assessment using iterative reconstructions: clinical comparison of low-dose abdominal/pelvic computed tomography between adaptive statistical, model-based iterative reconstructions and traditional filtered back projection in 65 patients. Invest Radiol 49:209–216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Park M, Chung YE, Lee HS, et al. (2014) Intraindividual comparison of diagnostic performance in patients with hepatic metastasis of full-dose standard and half-dose iterative reconstructions with dual-source abdominal computed tomography. Invest Radiol 49:195–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Matsuki M, Murakami T, Juri H, Yoshikawa S, Narumi Y (2013) Impact of adaptive iterative dose reduction (AIDR) 3D on low-dose abdominal CT: comparison with routine-dose CT using filtered back projection. Acta Radiol 54:869–875

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Geleijns J, Irwan R (2012) Practical approaches to dose reduction: Toshiba perspective radiation dose from multidetector CT. Berlin: Springer, pp 633–645

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Yoon JH, Lee JM, Yu MH, et al. (2014) Comparison of iterative model-based reconstruction versus conventional filtered back projection and hybrid iterative reconstruction techniques: lesion conspicuity and influence of body size in anthropomorphic liver phantoms. J Comput Assist Tomogr. doi:10.1097/RCT.0000000000000145

    Google Scholar 

  16. Söderberg M, Gunnarsson M (2010) Automatic exposure control in computed tomography-an evaluation of systems from different manufacturers. Acta Radiol 51:625–634

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim M, Lee JM, Yoon JH, et al. (2014) Adaptive iterative dose reduction algorithm in CT: effect on image quality compared with filtered back projection in body phantoms of different sizes. Korean J Radiol 15:195–204

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fletcher JG, Krueger WR, Hough DM, et al. (2013) Pilot study of detection, radiologist confidence and image quality with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction at half-routine dose level. J Comput Assist Tomogr 37:203–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vardhanabhuti V, Loader R, Roobottom CA (2013) Assessment of image quality on effects of varying tube voltage and automatic tube current modulation with hybrid and pure iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominal/pelvic CT: a phantom study. Invest Radiol 48:167–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shuman WP, Green DE, Busey JM, et al. (2013) 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. Am J Roentgenol 200:1071–1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Menke J (2005) Comparison of different body size parameters for individual dose adaptation in body CT of adults. Radiology 236:565–571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gervaise A, Osemont B, Lecocq S, et al. (2012) CT image quality improvement using adaptive iterative dose reduction with wide-volume acquisition on 320-detector CT. Eur Radiol 22:295–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

H.S. is an employee of Toshiba Medical Systems Korea.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea

    Jeong Hee Yoon, Jeong Min Lee, Joon Koo Han & Byung Ihn Choi

  2. Department of Radiology and Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Korea

    Jeong Min Lee, Joon Koo Han & Byung Ihn Choi

  3. Department of Radiology, SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

    Bo Yun Hur

  4. Human Medical Imaging & Intervention Center, Seoul, Korea

    Jeehyun Baek

  5. Toshiba Medical Systems Korea Co. Ltd, Seoul, Korea

    Hackjoon Shim

Authors
  1. Jeong Hee Yoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeong Min Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bo Yun Hur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jeehyun Baek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hackjoon Shim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joon Koo Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Byung Ihn Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeong Min Lee.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 280 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yoon, J.H., Lee, J.M., Hur, B.Y. et al. Influence of the adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D algorithm on the detectability of low-contrast lesions and radiation dose repeatability in abdominal computed tomography: a phantom study. Abdom Imaging 40, 1843–1852 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0333-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0333-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation