Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of acquisition method and reconstruction algorithm for CT number measurement on standard-dose CT and reduced-dose CT: a QIBA phantom study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Japanese Journal of Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the effect of different acquisition and reconstruction methods on the radiation dose and accuracy of CT number measurements, using a 320-detector row CT and a Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance (QIBA) recommended phantom.

Materials and methods

Acquisitions were performed on a 320-detector row CT, as 64- and 80-detector row helical and wide detector step-and-shoot (i.e., wide volume) acquisitions with tube currents of 400 mA, 100 mA, 50 mA, 20 mA, and 10 mA. Image was reconstructed with the filtered back projection (FBP), adaptive iterative dose reduction using 3D processing (AIDR 3D), and forward projected model-based iterative reconstruction (FIRST) methods. The difference between measured CT numbers and the actual -856HU value of the phantom insert was determined by each CT acquisition protocol. Differences in actual and measured CT numbers were compared among acquisitions and among reconstruction methods by means of Tukey’s HSD test.

Results

The CT number obtained with 64-detector row helical acquisition was significantly larger than that obtained with others (p < 0.0001). At each tube current, the CT number reconstructed with FIRST was significantly smaller than that with others (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Acquisition and reconstruction methods are significantly affecting radiation dose reduction and accuracy of CT number measurements on a phantom study.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dirksen A, Friis M, Olesen KP, Skovgaard LT, Sørensen K. Progress of emphysema in severe alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency as assessed by annual CT. Acta Radiol. 1997;38:826–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Madani A, Zanen J, de Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA. Pulmonary emphysema: objective quantification at multi-detector row CT-comparison with macroscopic and microscopic morphometry. Radiology. 2006;238:1036–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Madani A, De Maertelaer V, Zanen J, Gevenois PA. Pulmonary emphysema: radiation dose and section thickness at multidetector CT quantification-comparison with macroscopic and microscopic morphometry. Radiology. 2007;243:250–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Madani A, Van Muylem A, de Maertelaer V, Zanen J, Gevenois PA. Pulmonary emphysema: size distribution of emphysematous spaces on multidetector CT images-comparison with macroscopic and microscopic morphometry. Radiology. 2008;248:1036–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stoel BC, Putter H, Bakker ME, et al. Volume correction in computed tomography densitometry for follow-up studies on pulmonary emphysema. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2008;5:919–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Coxson HO. Sources of variation in quantitative computed tomography of the lung. J Thorac Imaging. 2013;28:272–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Shaker SB, Dirksen A, Laursen LC, Skovgaard LT, Holstein-Rathlou NH. Volume adjustment of lung density by computed tomography scans in patients with emphysema. Acta Radiol. 2004;45:417–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Iyer KS, Grout RW, Zamba GK, Hoffman EA. Repeatability and sample size assessment associated with computed tomography-based lung density metrics. Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis. 2014;1:97–104.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Keller BM, Reeves AP, Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF. Multivariate compensation of quantitative pulmonary emphysema metric variation from low-dose, whole-lung CT scans. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:W495–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Park SJ, Lee CH, Goo JM, Heo CY, Kim JH. Inter-scan repeatability of CT-based lung densitometry in the surveillance of emphysema in a lung cancer screening setting. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:e554–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gietema HA, Schilham AM, van Ginneken B, van Klaveren RJ, Lammers JW, Prokop M. Monitoring of smoking-induced emphysema with CT in a lung cancer screening setting: detection of real increase in extent of emphysema. Radiology. 2007;244:890–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chong D, Brown MS, Kim HJ, et al. Reproducibility of volume and densitometric measures of emphysema on repeat computed tomography with an interval of 1 week. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:287–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hochhegger B, Irion KL, Marchiori E, Moreira JS. Reconstruction algorithms and their influence in emphysema CT measurements. Acad Radiol. 2010;17:674.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Diciotti S, Sverzellati N, Kauczor HU, et al. Defining the intra-subject variability of whole-lung CT densitometry in two lung cancer screening trials. Acad Radiol. 2011;18:1403–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. QIBA (2017) Lung density profile under development and will appear. https://www.rsna.org/QIBA-Profiles-in-Development/.

  16. QIBA (2017) Lung density COPDGene 2 phantom design, CTP698 and CCT162 COPDGene® lung phantom II. http://www.phantomlab.com/other-catphans.

  17. Sieren JP, Newell JD, Judy PF, et al. Reference standard and statistical model for intersite and temporal comparisons of CT attenuation in a multicenter quantitative lung study. Med Phys. 2012;39:5757–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen-Mayer HH, Fuld MK, Hoppel B, et al. Standardizing CT lung density measure across scanner manufacturers. Med Phys. 2017;44:974–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Ohno Y, Takenaka D, Kanda T, et al. Adaptive iterative dose reduction using 3D processing for reduced- and low-dose pulmonary CT: comparison with standard-dose CT for image noise reduction and radiological findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:W477–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measurement error. BMJ. 1996;312:1654.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bland JM, Altman DG. Agreed statistics: measurement method comparison. Anesthesiology. 2012;116:182–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nishio M, Matsumoto S, Ohno Y, et al. Emphysema quantification by low-dose CT: potential impact of adaptive iterative dose reduction using 3D processing. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:595–601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nishio M, Matsumoto S, Seki S, et al. Emphysema quantification on low-dose CT using percentage of low-attenuation volume and size distribution of low-attenuation lung regions: effects of adaptive iterative dose reduction using 3D processing. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:2268–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nagatani Y, Takahashi M, Murata K, Investigators of ACTIve Study Group, et al. Lung nodule detection performance in five observers on computed tomography (CT) with adaptive iterative dose reduction using three-dimensional processing (AIDR 3D) in a Japanese multicenter study: comparison between ultra-low-dose CT and low-dose CT by receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:1401–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ohno Y, Koyama H, Fujisawa Y, et al. Hybrid Type iterative reconstruction method vs. filter back projection method: capability for radiation dose reduction and perfusion assessment on dynamic first-pass contrast-enhanced perfusion chest area-detector CT. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:164–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nishio M, Koyama H, Ohno Y, et al. Emphysema quantification using ultralow-dose CT with iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206:1184–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ohno Y, Yaguchi A, Okazaki T, et al. Comparative evaluation of newly developed model-based and commercially available hybrid-type iterative reconstruction methods and filter back projection method in terms of accuracy of computer-aided volumetry (CADv) for low-dose CT protocols in phantom study. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:1375–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim V, Davey A, Comellas AP, COPDGene® Investigators, et al. Clinical and computed tomographic predictors of chronic bronchitis in COPD: a cross sectional analysis of the COPDGene study. Respir Res. 2014;15:52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Oelsner EC, Smith BM, Hoffman EA, et al. Prognostic significance of large airway dimensions on computed tomography in the general population. The multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis (MESA) lung study. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2018;15:718–27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work is “Original Research” and Dr. Ohno had a research grant from the Canon Medical Systems Corporation. Ms. Fujisawa, Mr. Fujii and Mr. Sugihara are employees of Canon Medical Systems Corporation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Functional and Diagnostic Imaging Research, Department of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-2 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0017, Japan

    Yoshiharu Ohno, Shinichiro Seki & Takeshi Yoshikawa

  2. Advanced Biomedical Imaging Research Center, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan

    Yoshiharu Ohno, Shinichiro Seki & Takeshi Yoshikawa

  3. Canon Medical Systems Corporation, Otawara, Tochigi, Japan

    Yasuko Fujisawa, Kenji Fujii & Naoki Sugihara

  4. Division of Radiology, Department of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan

    Yuji Kishida

Authors
  1. Yoshiharu Ohno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yasuko Fujisawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kenji Fujii
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Naoki Sugihara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yuji Kishida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shinichiro Seki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Takeshi Yoshikawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yoshiharu Ohno.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ohno, Y., Fujisawa, Y., Fujii, K. et al. Effects of acquisition method and reconstruction algorithm for CT number measurement on standard-dose CT and reduced-dose CT: a QIBA phantom study. Jpn J Radiol 37, 399–411 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-019-00823-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-019-00823-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation