Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the image qualities of filtered back-projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and model-based iterative reconstruction for CT venography at 80 kVp

  • Computed Tomography
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the subjective and objective qualities of computed tomography (CT) venography images at 80 kVp using model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) and to compare these with those of filtered back projection (FBP) and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) using the same CT data sets.

Materials and methods

Forty-four patients (mean age: 56.1 ± 18.1) who underwent 80 kVp CT venography (CTV) for the evaluation of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) during 4 months were enrolled in this retrospective study. The same raw data were reconstructed using FBP, ASIR, and MBIR. Objective and subjective image analysis were performed at the inferior vena cava (IVC), femoral vein, and popliteal vein.

Results

The mean CNR of MBIR was significantly greater than those of FBP and ASIR and images reconstructed using MBIR had significantly lower objective image noise (p < .001). Subjective image quality and confidence of detecting DVT by MBIR group were significantly greater than those of FBP and ASIR (p < .005), and MBIR had the lowest score for subjective image noise (p < .001).

Conclusion

CTV at 80 kVp with MBIR was superior to FBP and ASIR regarding subjective and objective image qualities.

Key Points

• MBIR provides superior image quality compared with FBP and ASIR

• CTV at 80kVp with MBIR improves diagnostic confidence in diagnosing DVT

• CTV at 80kVp with MBIR presents better image quality with low radiation

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. Merli G (2005) Diagnostic assessment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Am J Med 118:3S–12S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stein PD, Kayali F, Olson RE (2004) Estimated case fatality rate of pulmonary embolism, 1979 to 1998. Am J Cardiol 93:1197–1199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kyrle PA, Eichinger S (2005) Deep vein thrombosis. Lancet 365:1163–1174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Byun SS, Kim JH, Kim YJ, Jeon YS, Park CH, Kim WH (2008) Evaluation of deep vein thrombosis with multidetector row CT after orthopedic arthroplasty: a prospective study for comparison with Doppler sonography. Korean J Radiol 9:59–66

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Kanne JP, Lalani TA (2004) Role of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Circulation 109:I15–I21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Goodman LR, Stein PD, Matta F et al (2007) CT venography and compression sonography are diagnostically equivalent: data from PIOPED II. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:1071–1076

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rhee KH, Iyer RS, Cha S et al (2007) Benefit of CT venography for the diagnosis of thromboembolic disease. Clin Imaging 31:253–258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Peterson DA, Kazerooni EA, Wakefield TW et al (2001) Computed tomographic venography is specific but not sensitive for diagnosis of acute lower-extremity deep venous thrombosis in patients with suspected pulmonary embolus. J Vasc Surg 34:798–804

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nakaura T, Awai K, Oda S et al (2011) A low-kilovolt (peak) high-tube current technique improves venous enhancement and reduces the radiation dose at indirect multidetector-row CT venography: initial experience. J Comput Assist Tomogr 35:141–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosendaal FR, Van Hylckama VA, Tanis BC, Helmerhorst FM (2003) Estrogens, progestogens and thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost 1:1371–1380

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cho ES, Kim JH, Kim S et al (2012) Computed tomographic venography for varicose veins of the lower extremities: prospective comparison of 80-kVp and conventional 120-kVp protocols. J Comput Assist Tomogr 36:583–590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Golledge J, Quigley FG (2003) Pathogenesis of varicose veins. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 25:319–324

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rademaker J, Griesshaber V, Hidajat N, Oestmann JW, Felix R (2001) Combined CT pulmonary angiography and venography for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis: radiation dose. J Thorac Imaging 16:297–299

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yasaka K, Katsura M, Akahane M, Sato J, Matsuda I, Ohtomo K (2013) Model-based iterative reconstruction for reduction of radiation dose in abdominopelvic CT: comparison to adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. SpringerPlus 2:209

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL et al (2004) Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 230:619–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ichikawa Y, Kitagawa K, Nagasawa N, Murashima S, Sakuma H (2013) CT of the chest with model-based, fully iterative reconstruction: comparison with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. BMC Med Imaging 13:27

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  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 5:286–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tatsugami F, Husmann L, Herzog BA et al (2009) Evaluation of a body mass index-adapted protocol for low-dose 64-MDCT coronary angiography with prospective ECG triggering. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:635–638

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Irie T, Inoue H (2005) Individual modulation of the tube current-seconds to achieve similar levels of image noise in contrast-enhanced abdominal CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1514–1518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 199:1266–1274

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Deak 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 266:197–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vardhanabhuti V, Loader RJ, Mitchell GR, Riordan RD, Roobottom CA (2013) Image quality assessment of standard- and low-dose chest CT using filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and novel model-based iterative reconstruction algorithms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:545–552

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Shuman WP, Green DE, Busey JM et al (2013) Model-based iterative reconstruction versus adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection in liver 64-MDCT: focal lesion detection, lesion conspicuity, and image noise. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:1071–1076

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Smith EA, Dillman JR, Goodsitt MM, Christodoulou EG, Keshavarzi N, Strouse PJ (2014) Model-based iterative reconstruction: effect on patient radiation dose and image quality in pediatric body CT. Radiology 270:526–534

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Brady SL, Moore BM, Yee BS, Kaufman RA (2014) Pediatric CT: implementation of ASIR for substantial radiation dose reduction while maintaining pre-ASIR image noise. Radiology 270:223–231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gay F, Pavia Y, Pierrat N, Lasalle S, Neuenschwander S, Brisse HJ (2014) Dose reduction with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction for paediatric CT: phantom study and clinical experience on chest and abdomen CT. Eur Radiol 24:102–111

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jensen K, Martinsen AC, Tingberg A, Aalokken TM, Fosse E (2014) Comparing five different iterative reconstruction algorithms for computed tomography in an ROC study. Eur Radiol 24:2989–3002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Herin E, Gardavaud F, Chiaradia M et al (2015) Use of Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction (MBIR) in reduced-dose CT for routine follow-up of patients with malignant lymphoma: dose savings, image quality and phantom study. Eur Radiol 25:2362–2370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kulkarni NM, Uppot RN, Eisner BH, Sahani DV (2012) Radiation dose reduction at multidetector CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction for evaluation of urolithiasis: how low can we go? Radiology 265:158–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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 

  31. Kulkarni NM, Sahani DV, Desai GS, Kalva SP (2012) Indirect computed tomography venography of the lower extremities using single-source dual-energy computed tomography: advantage of low-kiloelectron volt monochromatic images. J Vasc Interv Radiol 23:879–886

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schueller-Weidekamm C, Schaefer-Prokop CM, Weber M, Herold CJ, Prokop M (2006) CT angiography of pulmonary arteries to detect pulmonary embolism: improvement of vascular enhancement with low kilovoltage settings. Radiology 241:899–907

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Park CK, Choo KS, Jeon UB et al (2013) Image quality and radiation dose of 128-slice dual-source CT venography using low kilovoltage combined with high-pitch scanning and automatic tube current modulation. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 29:47–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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 269:469–474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Matsuoka S, Hunsaker AR, Gill RR et al (2009) Vascular enhancement and image quality of MDCT pulmonary angiography in 400 cases: comparison of standard and low kilovoltage settings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:1651–1656

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cho ES, Chung JJ, Kim S, Kim JH, Yu JS, Yoon CS (2013) CT venography for deep vein thrombosis using a low tube voltage (100 kVp) setting could increase venous enhancement and reduce the amount of administered iodine. Korean J Radiol 14:183–193

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Fujikawa A, Matsuoka S, Kuramochi K et al (2011) Vascular enhancement and image quality of CT venography: comparison of standard and low kilovoltage settings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:838–843

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Oda S, Utsunomiya D, Funama Y et al (2012) Evaluation of deep vein thrombosis with reduced radiation and contrast material dose at computed tomography venography: clinical application of a combined iterative reconstruction and low-tube-voltage technique. Circ J 76:2614–2622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Oda S, Utsunomiya D, Awai K et al (2011) Indirect computed tomography venography with a low-tube-voltage technique: reduction in the radiation and contrast material dose--a prospective randomized study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 35:631–636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Cham MD, Yankelevitz DF, Shaham D et al (2000) Deep venous thrombosis: detection by using indirect CT venography. The Pulmonary Angiography-Indirect CT Venography Cooperative Group. Radiology 216:744–751

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Bruce D, Loud PA, Klippenstein DL, Grossman ZD, Katz DS (2001) Combined CT venography and pulmonary angiography: how much venous enhancement is routinely obtained? AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:1281–1285

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Begemann PG, Bonacker M, Kemper J et al (2003) Evaluation of the deep venous system in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism with multi-detector CT: a prospective study in comparison to Doppler sonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 27:399–409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Yankelevitz DF, Gamsu G, Shah A et al (2000) Optimization of combined CT pulmonary angiography with lower extremity CT venography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:67–69

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Baldt MM, Zontsich T, Stumpflen A et al (1996) Deep venous thrombosis of the lower extremity: efficacy of spiral CT venography compared with conventional venography in diagnosis. Radiology 200:423–428

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 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 36:347–353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 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 195:713–719

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kambadakone AR, Chaudhary NA, Desai GS, Nguyen DD, Kulkarni NM, Sahani DV (2011) Low-dose MDCT and CT enterography of patients with Crohn disease: feasibility of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:W743–W752

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Mitsumori LM, Shuman WP, Busey JM, Kolokythas O, Koprowicz KM (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 22:138–143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hsieh J, Nett B, Yu Z, Sauer K, Thibault J-B, Bouman CA (2013) Recent advances in CT image reconstruction. Curr Radiol Rep 1:39–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mieville FA, Gudinchet F, Brunelle F, Bochud FO, Verdun FR (2013) Iterative reconstruction methods in two different MDCT scanners: physical metrics and 4-alternative forced-choice detectability experiments--a phantom approach. Phys Med 29:99–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Willemink MJ, Schilham AM, Leiner T, Mali WP, de Jong PA, Budde RP (2013) Iterative reconstruction does not substantially delay CT imaging in an emergency setting. Insights Imaging 4:391–397

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Yamada Y, Jinzaki M, Tanami Y et al (2012) Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for ultralow-dose computed tomography of the lung: a pilot study. Investig Radiol 47:482–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Xu J, Mahesh M, Tsui BM (2009) Is iterative reconstruction ready for MDCT? J Am Coll Radiol 6:274–276

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Ki Seok Choo. 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. This study was supported by Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology (30-2014-013), Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Pusan, Korea

    Jin Hyeok Kim, Ki Seok Choo, Tae Yong Moon, Jun Woo Lee, Ung Bae Jeon, Tae Un Kim & Jae Yeon Hwang

  2. Department of Preventive and Occupational Medicine, School of Medicine, Pusan National University, Pusan, Korea

    Myeong-Ja Yun

  3. Department of Family Medicine, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Pusan, Korea

    Dong Wook Jeong

  4. Department of Cardiology, Kimhae Jungang Hospital, Gyeongsangnam-do, Korea

    Soo Jin Lim

Authors
  1. Jin Hyeok Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ki Seok Choo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tae Yong Moon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jun Woo Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ung Bae Jeon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tae Un Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jae Yeon Hwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Myeong-Ja Yun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Dong Wook Jeong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Soo Jin Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ki Seok Choo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, J.H., Choo, K.S., Moon, T.Y. et al. Comparison of the image qualities of filtered back-projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and model-based iterative reconstruction for CT venography at 80 kVp. Eur Radiol 26, 2055–2063 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4060-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4060-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation