Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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*)

  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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. Mettler FA, Thomadsen BR, Bhargavan M, et al. (2008) Medical radiation exposure in the U.S. in 2006: preliminary results. Health Phys 95(5):502–507

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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–e504

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):145–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):924–931

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Martinsen ACT, Sæther HK, Hol PK, Olsen DR, Skaane P (2012) Iterative reconstruction reduces abdominal CT dose. Eur J Radiol 81(7):1483–1487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):165–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):649–654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):661–669

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):373–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):932–936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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–W244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):191–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):787–794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1666–1672

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1230–1238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):209

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):3137–3146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Menzel H, Schibilla H, Teunen D (2000) European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Luxembourg: European Commission

    Google Scholar 

  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):5520–5531

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Solomon JB, Christianson O, Samei E (2012) Quantitative comparison of noise texture across CT scanners from different manufacturers. Med Phys 39(10):6048–6055

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):2420–2442

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):140–146

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):793–800

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):197–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):469–474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):4047–4061

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):735–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, 3350-950 W 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada

    Stephen Choy, Dennis Parhar, Kevin Lian, Luck Louis, Timothy O’Connell, Patrick McLaughlin & Savvas Nicolaou

  2. Siemens Medical Solutions, Malvern, PA, USA

    Heiko Schmiedeskamp

Authors
  1. Stephen Choy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dennis Parhar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kevin Lian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Heiko Schmiedeskamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luck Louis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Timothy O’Connell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Patrick McLaughlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Savvas Nicolaou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Choy.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Choy, S., Parhar, D., Lian, K. et al. 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*). Abdom Radiol 44, 355–361 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1687-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1687-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation