Comparing five different iterative reconstruction algorithms for computed tomography in an ROC study
- 998 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to evaluate lesion conspicuity achieved with five different iterative reconstruction techniques from four CT vendors at three different dose levels. Comparisons were made of iterative algorithm and filtered back projection (FBP) among and within systems.
An anthropomorphic liver phantom was examined with four CT systems, each from a different vendor. CTDIvol levels of 5 mGy, 10 mGy and 15 mGy were chosen. Images were reconstructed with FBP and the iterative algorithm on the system. Images were interpreted independently by four observers, and the areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) were calculated. Noise and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) were measured.
One iterative algorithm increased AUC (0.79, 0.95, and 0.97) compared to FBP (0.70, 0.86, and 0.93) at all dose levels (p < 0.001 and p = 0.047). Another algorithm increased AUC from 0.78 with FBP to 0.84 (p = 0.007) at 5 mGy. Differences at 10 and 15 mGy were not significant (p-values: 0.084–0.883). Three algorithms showed no difference in AUC compared to FBP (p-values: 0.008–1.000). All of the algorithms decreased noise (10–71 %) and improved CNR.
Only two algorithms improved lesion detection, even though noise reduction was shown with all algorithms.
• Iterative reconstruction algorithms affected lesion detection differently at different dose levels.
• One iterative algorithm improved lesion detectability compared to filtered back projection.
• Three algorithms did not significantly improve lesion detectability.
• One algorithm improved lesion detectability at the lowest dose level.
KeywordsComputed tomography Image reconstruction Radiological phantom Liver
Thanks to Erlend Andersen, Joanna Fenn Kristiansen, Wendy Garborg, and Rima Seputytë for help with phantom scanning, and thanks to Per Kristian Hol and Kristin Forså for image evaluation.
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Anne Catrine Martinsen. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. Kyrre Emblem kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript. Institutional Review Board approval was not required because this was a phantom study. Methodology: diagnostic or prognostic multicenter study.
- 1.Thibault JB (2011) A model-based paradigm: A new frontier in image reconstruction. In: GE Healthcare CT publication GE Healthcare. http://www.gehealthcare.com/usen/ct/products/docs/CT_Clarity_062411_pg63-65.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2014
- 2.Scibelli A (2011) iDose4 iterative reconstruction technique. Healthcare, PhilipsGoogle Scholar
- 3.Grant K, Raupach R (2012) SAFIRE: Sinogram Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction. usa.healthcare.siemens.com
- 4.Irwan R, Nakanishi S, Blum A (2011) AIDR 3D - Reduces dose and simultaneously improves image quality. Toshiba Med Syst 1–8. www.toshiba-medical.eu/upload/TMSE_CT/White%20Papers/Toshiba_White%20paper%20CT_nov11.pdf. Accessed 14 Jul 2013
- 7.Moscariello A, Takx RAP, Schoepf J et al (2011) Coronary CT angiography: image quality, diagnostic accuracy and potential for radiation dose reduction using a novel iterative image reconstruction technique - comparison with traditional filtered back projection. Eur Radiol 21:2130–2138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Authority NRP (2012) Reviderte og nye nasjonale referanseverdier for røntgendiagnostiske undersøkelser per 2012. StrålevernInfo 2–10Google Scholar
- 19.Mueck FG, Körner M, Scherr M et al (2012) Upgrade to iterative image reconstruction (IR) in abdominal MDCT imaging: a clinical study for detailed parameter optimization beyond vendor recommendations using the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction environment (ASIR) . Fortschr Röntgenstr 184:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.GE Healthcare (2010) Veo - For Discovery CT750 HD. In: GE Healthcare, ManualGoogle Scholar
- 23.Wirth S, Mück F, Körner M et al (2011) B-856: Image quality and dose saving aspects of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) in 64-row abdominal CT imaging. European Congress of Radiology, ECR, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- 25.de Mey J (2011) Implementing ultra-low dose CT with Veo at University Hospital, Brussels. www.gehealthcare.com/CT, November 2011
- 26.Ghetti C, Palleri F, Serreli G, Ortenzia O, Ruffini L (2013) Physical characterization of a new CT iterative reconstruction method operating in sinogram space. J Appl Clin Med Phys 14:263–271Google Scholar
- 27.Angel E (2012) AIDR 3D iterative reconstruction. Toshiba Med Syst 1–10. www.medical.toshiba.com/downloads/rxl-wp-aidr-3d-iterative-reconstruction. Accessed 14 Jul 2014
- 28.Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Statist 6:65–70Google Scholar
- 31.Chang W, Lee JM, Lee K et al (2013) Assessment of a model-based , iterative reconstruction algorithm (MBIR) regarding image quality and dose reduction in liver computed tomography. Invest Radiol 48(8):598–606Google Scholar
- 33.Olsson ML, Norrgren K (2012) An investigation of the iterative reconstruction method iDose4 on a Philips CT Brilliance 64 using a Catphan 600 phantom. SPIE ProcGoogle Scholar
- 34.Fletcher JG, Grant K, Fidler JL et al (2012) Validation of dual-source single-tube reconstruction as a method to obtain half-dose images to evaluate radiation dose and noise reduction: Phantom and human assessment using CT colonography and sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) . J Comput Assist Tomogr 36:560–569PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar