European Radiology

, Volume 21, Issue 12, pp 2521–2526

Raw data-based iterative reconstruction in body CTA: evaluation of radiation dose saving potential

  • Anna Winklehner
  • Christoph Karlo
  • Gilbert Puippe
  • Bernhard Schmidt
  • Thomas Flohr
  • Robert Goetti
  • Thomas Pfammatter
  • Thomas Frauenfelder
  • Hatem Alkadhi
Computed Tomography

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate prospectively, in patients undergoing body CTA, the radiation dose saving potential of raw data-based iterative reconstruction as compared to filtered back projection (FBP).

Methods

Twenty-five patients underwent thoraco-abdominal CTA with 128-slice dual-source CT, operating both tubes at 120 kV. Full-dose (FD) images were reconstructed with FBP and were compared to half-dose (HD) images with FBP and HD-images with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE), both reconstructed using data from only one tube-detector-system. Image quality and sharpness of the aortic contour were assessed. Vessel attenuation and noise were measured, contrast-to-noise-ratio was calculated.

Results

Noise as image quality deteriorating artefact occurred in 24/25 (96%) HD-FBP but not in FD-FBP and HD-raw data-based iterative reconstruction datasets (p < 0.001). Other artefacts occurred with similar prevalence among the datasets. Sharpness of the aortic contour was higher for FD-FBP and HD-raw data-based iterative reconstruction as compared to HD-FBP (p < 0.001). Aortoiliac attenuation was similar among all datasets (p > 0.05). Lowest noise was found for HD-raw data-based iterative reconstruction (7.23HU), being 9.4% lower than that in FD-FBP (7.98HU, p < 0.05) and 30.8% lower than in HD-FBP images (10.44HU, p < 0.001). Contrast-to-noise-ratio was lower in HD-FBP (p < 0.001) and higher in HD-raw data-based iterative reconstruction (p < 0.001) as compared to FD-FBP.

Conclusion

Intra-individual comparisons of image quality of body CTA suggest that raw data-based iterative reconstruction allows for dose reduction >50% while maintaining image quality.

Key Points

Raw data-based iterative reconstruction reduces image noise and improves image quality as compared to filtered back projection

At a similar radiation dose, raw data-based iterative reconstruction improves the sharpness of vessel contours

In body CTA a dose reduction of >50% might be possible when using raw data-based iterative reconstructions, while image quality can be maintained

Keywords

Computed tomography Angiography Iterative reconstruction Raw data Radiation dose Image quality 

References

  1. 1.
    Alkadhi H, Schindera ST (2011) State of the art low-dose CT angiography of the body. Eur J Radiol. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.12.099
  2. 2.
    Wintersperger B, Jakobs T, Herzog P et al (2005) Aorto-iliac multidetector-row CT angiography with low kV settings: improved vessel enhancement and simultaneous reduction of radiation dose. Eur Radiol 15:334–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM Jr (2006) CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. Radiographics 26:503–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL et al (2004) Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 230:619–628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pontana F, Pagniez J, Flohr T et al (2010) Chest computed tomography using iterative reconstruction vs filtered back projection (Part 1): evaluation of image noise reduction in 32 patients. Eur Radiol 21:627–635PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pontana F, Duhamel A, Pagniez J et al (2010) Chest computed tomography using iterative reconstruction vs filtered back projection (Part 2): image quality of low-dose CT examinations in 80 patients. Eur Radiol 21:636–643PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Prakash P, Kalra MK, Kambadakone AK et al (2010) Reducing abdominal CT radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Invest Radiol 45:202–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sagara Y, Hara AK, Pavlicek W, Silva AC, Paden RG, Wu Q (2010) Abdominal CT: comparison of low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:713–719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    May MS, Wust W, Brand M et al (2011) Dose reduction in abdominal computed tomography: intraindividual comparison of image quality of full-dose standard and half-dose iterative reconstructions with dual-source computed tomography. Invest Radiol 46:465–470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schindera ST, Graca P, Patak MA et al (2009) Thoracoabdominal-aortoiliac multidetector-row CT angiography at 80 and 100 kVp: assessment of image quality and radiation dose. Invest Radiol 44:650–655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Association of Physicists in Medicine (2008) The Measurement, Reporting, and Management of Radiation Dose in CT. American Association of Physicists in Medicine task group 23, College Park, MD. http://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/rpt_96.pdf. Accessed 05 Feb 2011
  12. 12.
    Macari M, Chandarana H, Schmidt B, Lee J, Lamparello P, Babb J (2006) Abdominal aortic aneurysm: can the arterial phase at CT evaluation after endovascular repair be eliminated to reduce radiation dose? Radiology 241:908–914PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barrett HH, Swindell W (1981) Radiological imaging: the theory of image formation, detection, and processing. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Winklehner
    • 1
  • Christoph Karlo
    • 1
  • Gilbert Puippe
    • 1
  • Bernhard Schmidt
    • 2
  • Thomas Flohr
    • 2
  • Robert Goetti
    • 1
  • Thomas Pfammatter
    • 1
  • Thomas Frauenfelder
    • 1
  • Hatem Alkadhi
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyUniversity Hospital ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Siemens HealthcareForchheimGermany

Personalised recommendations