Abstract
Our purpose in this study was to evaluate the image quality of low-radiation-dose CT using hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR), and to compare the results with those of filtered back projection (FBP) at routine doses. We measured the mean values and standard deviation of the CT numbers within and outside a 15-mm low-contrast object cylinder at 1.0 % contrast level. The noise reduction levels of the HIR were 1 (weak) to 7 (strong). Visual inspection of the low-contrast detectability was done by six radiologic technologists. The low-contrast detectability of the cylinder at the 1.0 % contrast level with HIR at all mAs levels was equal to that obtained with FBP, and thus the use of HIR did not result in any improvement of low-contrast detectability.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Funama Y, Awai K, Nakayama Y, Kakei K, Nagasue N, Shimamura M, Sato N, Sultana S, Morishita S, Yamashita Y. Radiation dose reduction without degradation of low-contrast detectability at abdominal multisection CT with a low-tube voltage technique: phantom study. Radiology. 2005;237:905–10.
Noël PB, Fingerle AA, Renger B, Münzel D, Rummeny EJ, Dobritz M. Initial performance characterization of a clinical noise-suppressing reconstruction algorithm for MDCT. AJR. 2011;197:1404–9.
Gervaise A, Osemont B, Lecocq S, Noel A, Micard E, Felblinger J, Blum A. CT image quality improvement using adaptive iterative dose reduction with wide-volume acquisition on 320-detector CT. Eur Radiol. 2011; doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2271-7.
Ghetti C, Ortenzia O, Serreli G. CT iterative reconstruction in image space: a phantom study. Phys Med. 2011; PMID:21497530.
Hara AK, Paden RG, Silva AC, Kujak JL, Lawder HJ, Pavlicek W. Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: feasibility study. AJR. 2009;193:764–71.
Mitsumori LM, Shuman WP, Busey JM, Kolokythas O, Koprowicz KM. Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction versus filtered back projection in the same patient: 64 channel liver CT image quality and patient radiation dose. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:138–43.
Lee SJ, Park SH, Kim AY, Yang SK, Yun SC, Lee SS, Jung GS, Ha HK. A prospective comparison of standard-dose CT enterography and 50% reduced-dose CT enterography with and without noise reduction for evaluating Crohn disease. AJR. 2011;197:50–7.
Pontana F, Duhamel A, Pagniez J, Flohr T, Faivre JB, Hachulla AL, Remy J, Remy-Jardin M. Chest computed tomography using iterative reconstruction vs filtered back projection (Part 2): image quality of low-dose CT examinations in 80 patients. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:636–43.
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. 2010;195:713–9.
Singh S, Kalra MK, Hsieh J, Licato PE, Do S, Pien HH, Blake MA. Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology. 2010;257:373–83.
Prakash P, Kalra MK, Kambadakone AK, Pien H, Hsieh J, Blake MA, Sahani DV. Reducing abdominal CT radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Invest Radiol. 2010;45:202–10.
Singh S, Kalra MK, Gilman MD, Hsieh J, Pien HH, Digumarthy SR, Shepard JA. Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: a pilot study. Radiology. 2011;259:565–73.
Murazaki H, Funama Y, Hatemura M, Fujioka C, Tomiguchi S. Quantitative evaluation of calcium (content) in the coronary artery using hybrid iterative reconstruction (iDose) algorithm on low-dose 64-detector CT: comparison of iDose and filtered back projection (in Japanese). Jpn J Radiol Technol. 2011;67:360–6.
Scibelli A. iDose4 iterative reconstruction technique. Philips Healthcare website http://clinical.netforum.healthcare.philips.com/global/Explore/White-Papers/CT/iDose4-iterative-reconstruction-technique. Published 11 March 2011.
Amis ES Jr. CT radiation dose: trending in the right direction. Radiology. 2011;261:5–8.
Berrington de González A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 2004; 363:345–51.
Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard JA, Saini S. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology. 2004;230:619–28.
Awai K, Takada K, Onishi H, Hori S. Aortic and hepatic enhancement and tumor-to-liver contrast: analysis of the effect if different concentrations of contrast material at multi-detector row helical CT. Radiology. 2002;224:757–63.
Kihara S, Murazaki H, Hatemura M, Sakumura H, Sakuta K, Morisaki T, Funama Y. Radiation reduction and image quality improvement with iterative reconstruction at multidetector-row computed tomography (in Japanese). Jpn J Radiol Technol. 2011;67:1426–32.
Takata T, Ichikawa K, Hayashi H, Mitsui W, Sakuta K, Koshida H, Yokoi T, Matsubara K, Horii J, Iida H. Image quality evaluation of new image reconstruction methods applying the iterative reconstruction (in Japanese). Jpn J Radiol Technol. 2012;68:404–12.
Ichikawa K, Hara T, Niwa S, Yamaguchi I, Ohashi K. Evaluation of low contrast detectability using signal-to-noise ratio in computed tomography (in Japanese). J MII. 2007;24:106–11.
Acknowledgments
We appreciate the technical support we received from the Research Support Center, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, and Kouichiro Tawara and Hidekazu Ota from Philips Healthcare for technical assistance with the enormous HIR reconstruction. This work was partly supported by Philips Healthcare. Technical support for this study was provided by Philips Healthcare, and two of the coauthors, Ko Higuchi and Taisuke Fujioka, are employees of Philips Electronics Japan Medical Systems.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Kondo, M., Hatakenaka, M., Higuchi, K. et al. Feasibility of low-radiation-dose CT for abdominal examinations with hybrid iterative reconstruction algorithm: low-contrast phantom study. Radiol Phys Technol 6, 287–292 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-012-0197-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-012-0197-7