Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

CT image quality in sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction phantom study – is there a point of diminishing returns?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In our pediatric practice, we have observed qualitatively limited improvement in the image quality of images generated with sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) compared to series generated with filtered back projection (FBP), particularly in cases near or below a CT dose index volume (CTDIvol) of 1-mGy.

Objective

To determine whether the image quality advantage of SAFIRE remains constant across clinically used CT dose levels in an American College of Radiology (ACR) CT accreditation phantom including the lower dose range used in pediatric imaging.

Materials and methods

An exemption from institutional review board approval was obtained for this phantom-based study. An ACR quality phantom was scanned in incremental kV steps and effective tube current intervals. Acquisitions were reconstructed with FBP and SAFIRE strengths of 1, 3 and 5. Image quality measures were calculated including signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), low-contrast resolution and high-contrast resolution. Peak SNR was also calculated. Descriptive and nonparametric statistics were used to compare these image quality metrics while normalizing to CT dose index (CTDI).

Results

The percent improvement in SNR and peak SNR of SAFIRE reconstructions compared to FBP decreased from about 70% for image sets acquired above a 1.42 mGy CTDI to 25% at a 0.25 mGy CTDI. CNR improvement with SAFIRE did not vary with dose. No significant difference was seen in the low-contrast resolution or high-contrast resolution of SAFIRE images compared to FBP.

Conclusion

SNR did not improve equally after applying SAFIRE across a spectrum clinically used CTDIs. Below a threshold CTDI, the incremental improvement of SAFIRE compared to FBP decreased.

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
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Thibault J, Sauer KD, Bouman CA et al (2007) A three-dimensional statistical approach to improved image quality for multislice helical CT. Med Phys 34:4526–4544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Image Gently Campaign Overview. http://www.imagegently.org/FAQsMore/CampaignOverview.aspx. Accessed 21 June 2015

  3. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2015) NRC: Glossary -- ALARA. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/alara.html. Accessed 21 June 2015

  4. Shuman WP (2010) Image Wisely - adaptive iterative reconstruction in CT: What does it do? How can I use it? http://www.imagewisely.org/~/media/ImageWisely%20Files/Imaging%20Physicians/IW_Shuman_ASIR1.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2015

  5. Mayo-Smith WW (2010) Image Wisely protocol design. http://www.imagewisely.org/~/media/ImageWisely%20Files/Imaging%20Physicians/IW%20Mayo-Smith%20Protocol%20Design.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2015

  6. American College of Radiology (2013) CT accreditation phantom instructions. http://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/Accreditation/CT/PhantomTestingInstruction.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2015

  7. Botelho MP, Agrawal R, Gonzalez-Guindalini FD et al (2013) Effect of radiation dose and iterative reconstruction on lung lesion conspicuity at MDCT: does one size fit all? Eur J Radiol 82:e726–e733

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Christe A, Charimo-Torrente J, Roychoudhury K et al (2013) Accuracy of low-dose computed tomography (CT) for detecting and characterizing the most common CT-patterns of pulmonary disease. Eur J Radiol 82:e142–e150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Desai GS, Fuentes Orrego JM, Kambadakone AR et al (2013) Performance of iterative reconstruction and automated tube voltage selection on the image quality and radiation dose in abdominal CT scans. J Comput Assist Tomogr 37:897–903

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hardie AD, Tipnis SV, Rieter WJ et al (2013) Physician preference between low-dose computed tomography with a sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction algorithm and routine-dose computed tomography with filtered back projection in abdominopelvic imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 37:932–936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Korn A, Bender B, Fenchel M et al (2013) Sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction in head CT: improvement of objective and subjective image quality with concomitant radiation dose reduction. Eur J Radiol 82:1431–1435

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Oda S, Utsunomiya D, Funama Y et al (2012) A hybrid iterative reconstruction algorithm that improves the image quality of low-tube-voltage coronary CT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:1126–1131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pontana F, Pagniez J, Duhamel A et al (2013) Reduced-dose low-voltage chest CT angiography with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction versus standard-dose filtered back projection. Radiology 267:609–618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang R, Schoepf UJ, Wu R et al (2014) Diagnostic accuracy of coronary CT angiography: comparison of filtered back projection and iterative reconstruction with different strengths. J Comput Assist Tomogr 38:179–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang H, Tan B, Zhao B et al (2013) Raw-data-based iterative reconstruction versus filtered back projection: image quality of low-dose chest computed tomography examinations in 87 patients. Clin Imaging 37:1024–1032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Marin D, Nelson RC, Schindera ST et al (2010) Low-tube-voltage, high-tube-current multidetector abdominal ct: improved image quality and decreased radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm—initial clinical experience. Radiology 254:145–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Karmazyn B, Liang Y, Ai H et al (2014) Optimization of hybrid iterative reconstruction level in pediatric body CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:426–431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nie P, Li H, Duan Y et al (2014) Impact of sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) algorithm on image quality with 70 kVp-tube-voltage dual-source CT angiography in children with congenital heart disease. PLoS One 9, e93210

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. McCollough CH, Yu L, Kofler JM et al (2015) Degradation of CT low-contrast spatial resolution due to the use of iterative reconstruction and reduced dose levels. Radiology 276:499–506

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Cody DD, Pfeiffer D, McNitt-Gray MF et al (2012) ACR Computed tomography quality control manual. http://www.acr.org/Education/Education-Catalog/Products/8336734. Accessed 13 Sept 2016

  21. Wuerslin C (2013) DICOM Import GUI. http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/41912-dicom-import-gui/content/DicomImport.m. Accessed 27 Sept 2014

  22. Donald JH (2014) Kruskal-Wallis test. http://www.biostathandbook.com/kruskalwallis.html. Accessed 14 July 2015

  23. Webb A (2003) Introduction to biomedical imaging. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ghetti C, Palleri F, Serreli G et al (2013) Physical characterization of a new CT iterative reconstruction method operating in sinogram space. J Appl Clin Med Phys 14:4347

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Miami,, Miami, FL, USA

    Juan C. Infante

  2. Department of Medical Imaging,, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago,, 225 E. Chicago Ave., Chicago, IL, 60611, USA

    Juan C. Infante & Cynthia K. Rigsby

  3. Department of Radiology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA

    Yu Liu

  4. Department of Radiology,, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine,, Chicago, IL, USA

    Cynthia K. Rigsby

  5. Department of Pediatrics,, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine,, Chicago, IL, USA

    Cynthia K. Rigsby

Authors
  1. Juan C. Infante
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yu Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cynthia K. Rigsby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan C. Infante.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Infante, J.C., Liu, Y. & Rigsby, C.K. CT image quality in sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction phantom study – is there a point of diminishing returns?. Pediatr Radiol 47, 333–341 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-016-3745-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-016-3745-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation