Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 355–361 | Cite as

Comparison of image noise and image quality between full-dose abdominal computed tomography scans reconstructed with weighted filtered back projection and half-dose scans reconstructed with improved sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE*)

  • Stephen ChoyEmail author
  • Dennis Parhar
  • Kevin Lian
  • Heiko Schmiedeskamp
  • Luck Louis
  • Timothy O’Connell
  • Patrick McLaughlin
  • Savvas Nicolaou
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To retrospectively compare the image noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and subjective image quality between CT images acquired with a dual-source, split-dose imaging protocol reconstructed at full and half doses with weighted filtered back projection (wFBP) and an improved sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction algorithm (SAFIRE*).

Methods

Fifty-three consecutive patients underwent contrast-enhanced CT of the abdomen using a standardized dual-source, single energy CT protocol. Half-dose images were retrospectively generated using data from one detector only. Full-dose datasets were reconstructed with wFBP, while half-dose datasets were reconstructed with wFBP and SAFIRE* strengths 1–5. Region of interest analysis was performed to assess SNR and noise. Diagnostic acceptability, subjective noise, and spatial resolution were graded on a 10-point scale by two readers. Statistical analysis was carried out with repeated measures analysis of variance, Wilcoxon signed rank test, and Cohen’s κ test.

Results

With the increasing strengths of SAFIRE*, a progressive reduction in noise and increase in SNR (p < 0.01) was observed. There was a statistically significant decrease in objective noise and increase in SNR in half-dose SAFIRE* strength 4 and 5 reconstructions compared to full-dose reconstructions using wFBP (p < 0.01). Qualitative analysis revealed a progressive increase in diagnostic acceptability, decrease in subjective noise and increase in spatial resolution for half-dose images reconstructed with the increasing strengths of SAFIRE* (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Half-dose CT images reconstructed with SAFIRE* at strength 4 and 5 have superior image quality compared to full-dose images reconstructed with wFBP. SAFIRE* potentially allows dose reductions in the order of 50% over wFBP.

Keywords

Abdominal imaging Dual-source CT Sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction Radiation dose reduction 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The University of British Columbia has a master research agreement with Siemens. Stephen Choy declares he has no conflict of interest. Dennis Parhar declares he has no conflict of interest. Kevin Lian declares he has no conflict of interest. Heiko Schmiedeskamp is an employee of Siemens Medical Solutions USA. Luck Louis declares he has no conflict of interest. Timothy O’Connell has received speaker fees from Siemens. Patrick McLaughlin declares he has no conflict of interest. Savvas Nicolaou declares he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Hospital institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective study. The need for informed consent was waived.

References

  1. 1.
    Mettler FA, Thomadsen BR, Bhargavan M, et al. (2008) Medical radiation exposure in the U.S. in 2006: preliminary results. Health Phys 95(5):502–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gordic S, Desbiolles L, Stolzmann P, et al. (2014) Advanced modelled iterative reconstruction for abdominal CT: qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Clin Radiol 69(12):e497–e504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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(1):145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kordolaimi SD, Argentos S, Pantos I, Kelekis NL, Efstathopoulos EP (2013) A new era in computed tomographic dose optimization: the impact of iterative reconstruction on image quality and radiation dose. J Comput Assist Tomogr 37(6):924–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martinsen ACT, Sæther HK, Hol PK, Olsen DR, Skaane P (2012) Iterative reconstruction reduces abdominal CT dose. Eur J Radiol 81(7):1483–1487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schabel C, Fenchel M, Schmidt B, et al. (2013) Clinical evaluation and potential radiation dose reduction of the novel sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction technique (SAFIRE) in abdominal computed tomography angiography. Acad Radiol 20(2):165–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leipsic J, Labounty TM, Heilbron B, et al. (2010) Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: assessment of image noise and image quality in coronary CT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(3):649–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vardhanabhuti V, Ilyas S, Gutteridge C, Freeman SJ, Roobottom CA (2013) Comparison of image quality between filtered back-projection and the adaptive statistical and novel model-based iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominal CT for renal calculi. Insights Imaging 4(5):661–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Singh S, Kalra MK, Hsieh J, et al. (2010) Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 257(2):373–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hardie AD, Tipnis SV, Rieter WJ, Rissing MS, De Cecco CN (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(6):932–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kalra MK, Woisetschläger M, Dahlström N, et al. (2013) Sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction of low-dose chest CT: effect on image quality and radiation dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201(2):W235–W244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Silva AC, Lawder HJ, Hara A, Kujak J, Pavlicek W (2010) Innovations in CT dose reduction strategy: application of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194(1):191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koc G, Courtier JL, Phelps A, Marcovici PA, MacKenzie JD (2014) Computed tomography depiction of small pediatric vessels with model-based iterative reconstruction. Pediatr Radiol 44(7):787–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen C-M, Lin Y-Y, Hsu M-Y, et al. (2016) Performance of adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D integrated with automatic tube current modulation in radiation dose and image noise reduction compared with filtered-back projection for 80-kVp abdominal CT: anthropomorphic phantom and patient study. Eur J Radiol 85(9):1666–1672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schaller F, Sedlmair M, Raupach R, Uder M, Lell M (2016) Noise reduction in abdominal computed tomography applying iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE). Acad Radiol 23(10):1230–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yasaka K, Katsura M, Akahane M, et al. (2013) Model-based iterative reconstruction for reduction of radiation dose in abdominopelvic CT: comparison to adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. SpringerPlus 2(1):209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Park SB, Kim YS, Lee JB, Park HJ (2015) Knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction (IMR) algorithm in ultralow-dose CT for evaluation of urolithiasis: evaluation of radiation dose reduction, image quality, and diagnostic performance. Abdom Imaging 40(8):3137–3146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Menzel H, Schibilla H, Teunen D (2000) European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Luxembourg: European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brady SL, Yee BS, Kaufman RA (2012) Characterization of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm for dose reduction in CT: a pediatric oncology perspective. Med Phys 39(9):5520–5531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Solomon JB, Christianson O, Samei E (2012) Quantitative comparison of noise texture across CT scanners from different manufacturers. Med Phys 39(10):6048–6055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burgess AE, Li X, Abbey CK (1997) Visual signal detectability with two noise components: anomalous masking effects. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 14(9):2420–2442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Notohamiprodjo S, Deak Z, Meurer F, et al. (2015) Image quality of iterative reconstruction in cranial CT imaging: comparison of model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR). Eur Radiol 25(1):140–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shuman WP, Chan KT, Busey JM, et al. (2014) Standard and reduced radiation dose liver CT images: adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction versus model-based iterative reconstruction-comparison of findings and image quality. Radiology 273(3):793–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Deák Z, Grimm JM, Treitl M, et al. (2013) Filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and a model-based iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT: an experimental clinical study. Radiology 266(1):197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Volders D, Bols A, Haspeslagh M, Coenegrachts K (2013) Model-based iterative reconstruction and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominal CT: comparison of image quality in the detection of colorectal liver metastases. Radiology 269(2):469–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Boedeker KL, McNitt-Gray MF (2007) Application of the noise power spectrum in modern diagnostic MDCT: part II. Noise power spectra and signal to noise. Phys Med Biol 52(14):4047–4061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Solomon J, Mileto A, Ramirez-Giraldo JC, Samei E (2015) Diagnostic performance of an advanced modeled iterative reconstruction algorithm for low-contrast detectability with a third-generation dual-source multidetector CT scanner: potential for radiation dose reduction in a multireader study. Radiology 275(3):735–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Vancouver General HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Siemens Medical SolutionsMalvernUSA

Personalised recommendations