Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

CT of the pancreas: comparison of image quality and pancreatic duct depiction among model-based iterative, adaptive statistical iterative, and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare CT images of the pancreas reconstructed with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR), and filtered back projection (FBP) techniques for image quality and pancreatic duct (PD) depiction. Data from 40 patients with contrast-enhanced abdominal CT [CTDIvol: 10.3 ± 3.0 (mGy)] during the late arterial phase were reconstructed with FBP, 40% ASiR–FBP blending, and MBIR. Two radiologists assessed the depiction of the main PD, image noise, and overall image quality using 5-point scale independently. Objective CT value and noise were measured in the pancreatic parenchyma, and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the PD was calculated. The Friedman test and post-hoc multiple comparisons with Bonferroni test following one-way ANOVA were used for qualitative and quantitative assessment, respectively. For the subjective assessment, scores for MBIR were significantly higher than those for FBP and 40% ASiR (all P < 0.001). No significant differences in CT values of the pancreatic parenchyma were noted among FBP, 40% ASiR, and MBIR images (P > 0.05). Objective image noise was significantly lower and CNR of the PD was higher with MBIR than with FBP and 40% ASiR (all P < 0.05). Our results suggest that pancreatic CT images reconstructed with MBIR have lower image noise, better image quality, and higher conspicuity and CNR of the PD compared with FBP and ASiR.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fletcher JG, Wiersema MJ, Farrell MA, et al. (2003) Pancreatic malignancy: value of arterial, pancreatic, and hepatic phase imaging with multi-detector row CT. Radiology 229(1):81–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brennan DD, Zamboni GA, Raptopoulos VD, et al. (2007) Comprehensive preoperative assessment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma with 64-section volumetric CT. RadioGraphics 27(6):1653–1666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tanaka S, Nakaizumi A, Ioka T, et al. (2002) Main pancreatic duct dilatation: a sign of high risk for pancreatic cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 32:407–411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fernández-del CC, Targarona J, Thayer SP, et al. (2003) Incidental pancreatic cysts: clinicopathologic characteristics and comparison with symptomatic patients. Arch Surg 138:427–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tanaka S, Nakao M, Ioka T, et al. (2010) Slight dilatation of the main pancreatic duct and presence of pancreatic cysts as predictive signs of pancreatic cancer: a prospective study. Radiology 254(3):965–972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ishii H, Taniguchi H, Shiozaki A, et al. (2012) Use of multidetector-row computed tomography to evaluate branch duct type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: influence on surgical decision-making. Hepatogastroenterology 59(115):884–888

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tan L, Zhao YE, Wang DB, et al. (2009) Imaging features of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas in multi-detector row computed tomography. World J Gastroenterol 15(32):4037–4043

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Takeshita K, Kutomi K, Takada K, et al. (2008) Differential diagnosis of benign or malignant intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas by multidetector row helical computed tomography: evaluation of predictive factors by logistic regression analysis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 32(2):191–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kawamoto S, Lawler LP, Horton KM, et al. (2006) MDCT of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas: evaluation of features predictive of invasive carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186(3):687–695

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shepp LA, Vardi Y (1982) Maximum likelihood reconstruction for emission tomography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1(2):113–122

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lange K, Carson R (1984) EM reconstruction algorithms for emission and transmission tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 8(2):306–316

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kak AC (1984) Image reconstruction from projections. In: Ekstrom M (ed) Digital image processing techniques. New York: Academic Press

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hara AK, Paden RG, Silva AC, et al. (2009) Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193(3):764–771

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Flicek KT, Hara AK, Silva AC, et al. (2010) Reducing the radiation dose for CT colonography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: a pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(1):126–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Prakash P, Kalra MK, Kambadakone AK, et al. (2010) Reducing abdominal CT radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Investig Radiol 45(4):202–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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):373–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nelson RC, Feuerlein S, Boll DT (2011) New iterative reconstruction techniques for cardiovascular computed tomography: how do they work, and what are the advantages and disadvantages? J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 5(5):286–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Suzuki S, Machida H, Tanaka I, et al. (2012) Measurement of vascular wall attenuation: comparison of CT angiography using model-based iterative reconstruction with standard filtered back-projection algorithm CT in vitro. Eur J Radiol 81(11):3348–3353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Scheffel H, Stolzmann P, Schlett CL, et al. (2012) Coronary artery plaques: cardiac CT with model-based and adaptive-statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Eur J Radiol 81(3):e363–e369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Katsura M, Matsuda I, Akahane M, et al. (2012) Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: comparison with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Eur Radiol 22(8):1613–1623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 

  22. Mitsumori LM, Shuman WP, Busey JM, et al. (2012) Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction versus filtered back projection in the same patient: 64 channel liver CT image quality and patient radiation dose. Eur Radiol 22(1):138–143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sagara Y, Hara AK, Pavlicek W, et al. (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 195:713–719

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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 195:649–654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cornfeld D, Israel G, Detroy E, et al. (2011) Impact of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) on radiation dose and image quality in aortic dissection studies: a qualitative and quantitative analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:W336–W340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Thibault JB, 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 

  28. Prakash P, Kalra MK, Digumarthy SR, et al. (2010) Radiation dose reduction with chest computed tomography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique: initial experience. J Comput Assist Tomogr 34:40–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. McNulty NJ, Francis IR, Platt JF, et al. (2001) Multi-detector row helical CT of the pancreas: effect of contrast-enhanced multiphasic imaging on enhancement of the pancreas, peripancreatic vasculature, and pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Radiology 220(1):97–102

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Goshima S, Kanematsu M, Kondo H, et al. (2006) Pancreas: optimal scan delay for contrast enhanced multi-detector row CT. Radiology 241(1):167–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Goshima S, Kanematsu M, Nishibori H, et al. (2011) MDCT of the pancreas: comparison of anatomic structure depiction, image quality, and radiation exposure between 320-detector volumetric images and 64-detector helical images. Radiology 260(1):139–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mieville FA, Gudinchet F, Brunelle F, et al. (2012) Iterative reconstruction methods in two different MDCT scanners: physical metrics and 4-alternative forced-choice detectability experiments—a phantom approach. Phys Med. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2011.12.004

    Google Scholar 

  33. Husarik DB, Marin D, Samei E, et al. (2012) Radiation dose reduction in abdominal computed tomography during the late hepatic arterial phase using a model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm: how low can we go? Investig Radiol 47(8):468–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Thibault JB, 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 

  35. Zhou Y, Thibault JB, Bouman CA, et al. (2011) Fast model-based X-ray CT reconstruction using spatially nonhomogenous ICD optimization. IEEE Trans Image Process 20:161–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Budovec J, Thibault JB, Foley WD (2008) Analysis of a Bayesian statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm for multidetector computed tomography. In: Proceedings of SCBT-MR.

  37. Singh S, Kalra MK, Do S, et al. (2012) Comparison of hybrid and pure iterative reconstruction techniques with conventional filtered back projection: dose reduction potential in the abdomen. J Comput Assist Tomogr 36(3):347–353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Pickhardt PJ, Lubner MG, Kim DH, et al. (2012) Abdominal CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199(6):1266–1274

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 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):209

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Yun Shen (PhD) and Jian-Ying Li (PhD) from GE Healthcare, for the technique support of CT imaging. Fundings were received for this work from Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (No. 10411953000, and No. 10JC1410900) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81071281).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, 197 2nd Ruijin Road, Shanghai, 200025, China

    Xiao-Zhu Lin, Ke-Min Chen & Fu-Hua Yan

  2. Department of Radiology, Tokyo Women’s Medical University Medical Center East, 2-1-10 Nishiogu, Arakawa-ku, Tokyo, 116-8567, Japan

    Haruhiko Machida, Isao Tanaka RT, Rika Fukui RT & Eiko Ueno

Authors
  1. Xiao-Zhu Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haruhiko Machida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Isao Tanaka RT
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rika Fukui RT
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eiko Ueno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ke-Min Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Fu-Hua Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fu-Hua Yan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lin, XZ., Machida, H., RT, I.T. et al. CT of the pancreas: comparison of image quality and pancreatic duct depiction among model-based iterative, adaptive statistical iterative, and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Abdom Imaging 39, 497–505 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0081-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0081-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation