Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostic performance of reduced-dose CT with a hybrid iterative reconstruction algorithm for the detection of hypervascular liver lesions: a phantom study

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

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the diagnostic performance of reduced-dose CT with a hybrid iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithm for the detection of hypervascular liver lesions.

Methods

Thirty liver phantoms with or without simulated hypervascular lesions were scanned with a 320-slice CT scanner with control-dose (40 mAs) and reduced-dose (30 and 20 mAs) settings. Control-dose images were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP), and reduced-dose images were reconstructed with FBP and a hybrid IR algorithm. Objective image noise and the lesion to liver contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were evaluated quantitatively. Images were interpreted independently by 2 blinded radiologists, and jackknife alternative free-response receiver-operating characteristic (JAFROC) analysis was performed.

Results

Hybrid IR images with reduced-dose settings (both 30 and 20 mAs) yielded significantly lower objective image noise and higher CNR than control-dose FBP images (P < .05). However, hybrid IR images with reduced-dose settings had lower JAFROC1 figure of merit than control-dose FBP images, although only the difference between 20 mAs images and control-dose FBP images was significant for both readers (P < .01).

Conclusions

An aggressive reduction of the radiation dose would impair the detectability of hypervascular liver lesions, although objective image noise and CNR would be preserved by a hybrid IR algorithm.

Key points

• A half-dose scan with a hybrid iterative reconstruction preserves objective image quality.

• A hybrid iterative reconstruction algorithm does not improve diagnostic performance.

• An aggressive dose reduction would impair the detectability of low-contrast lesions.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

IR:

Iterative reconstruction

FBP:

Filtered back projection

AIDR 3D:

Adaptive iterative dose reduction 3-dimensional

CD:

Control-dose

HCL:

High-contrast lesion

LCL:

Low-contrast lesion

QDS:

Quantum denoising filter

References

  1. Juri H, Tsuboyama T, Kumano S et al (2016) Detection of bladder cancer: comparison of low-dose scans with AIDR 3D and routine-dose scans with FBP on the excretory phase in CT urography. Br J Radiol 89:20150495

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Yoon JH, Lee JM, Hur BY et al (2015) Influence of the adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D algorithm on the detectability of low-contrast lesions and radiation dose repeatability in abdominal computed tomography: a phantom study. Abdom Imaging 40:1843–1852

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wallihan DB, Podberesky DJ, Sullivan J et al (2015) Diagnostic performance and dose comparison of filtered back projection and adaptive iterative dose reduction three-dimensional CT enterography in children and young adults. Radiology 276:233–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Onishi H, Kockelkoren R, Kim T et al (2015) Low-dose pelvic computed tomography using adaptive iterative dose reduction 3-dimensional algorithm: a phantom study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 39:629–634

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nitta N, Ikeda M, Sonoda A et al (2014) Images acquired using 320-MDCT with adaptive iterative dose reduction with wide-volume acquisition: visual evaluation of image quality by 10 radiologists using an abdominal phantom. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:2–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gervaise A, Osemont B, Louis M, Lecocq S, Teixeira P, Blum A (2014) Standard dose versus low-dose abdominal and pelvic CT: comparison between filtered back projection versus adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D. Diagn Interv Imaging 95:47–53

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Matsuki M, Murakami T, Juri H, Yoshikawa S, Narumi Y (2013) Impact of adaptive iterative dose reduction (AIDR) 3D on low-dose abdominal CT: comparison with routine-dose CT using filtered back projection. Acta Radiol 54:869–875

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Juri H, Matsuki M, Inada Y et al (2013) Low-dose computed tomographic urography using adaptive iterative dose reduction 3-dimensional: comparison with routine-dose computed tomography with filtered back projection. J Comput Assist Tomogr 37:426–431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Juri H, Matsuki M, Itou Y et al (2013) Initial experience with adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D to reduce radiation dose in computed tomographic urography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 37:52–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chakraborty DP (2008) Validation and statistical power comparison of methods for analyzing free-response observer performance studies. Acad Radiol 15:1554–1566

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Chakraborty DP (2006) Analysis of location specific observer performance data: validated extensions of the jackknife free-response (JAFROC) method. Acad Radiol 13:1187–1193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chakraborty DP, Berbaum KS (2004) Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation. Med Phys 31:2313–2330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zachrisson S, Vikgren J, Svalkvist A et al (2009) Effect of clinical experience of chest tomosynthesis on detection of pulmonary nodules. Acta Radiol 50:884–891

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. McCollough CH, Yu L, Kofler JM et al (2015) Degradation of CT low-contrast spatial resolution due to the use of iterative reconstruction and reduced dose levels. Radiology 276:499–506

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Schindera ST, Odedra D, Mercer D et al (2014) Hybrid iterative reconstruction technique for abdominal CT protocols in obese patients: assessment of image quality, radiation dose, and low-contrast detectability in a phantom. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:W146–W152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schindera ST, Odedra D, Raza SA et al (2013) Iterative reconstruction algorithm for CT: can radiation dose be decreased while low-contrast detectability is preserved? Radiology 269:511–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 

  18. Joemai RM, Veldkamp WJ, Kroft LJ, Hernandez-Giron I, Geleijns J (2013) Adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D versus filtered back projection in CT: evaluation of image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:1291–1297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Okumura M, Ota T, Kainuma K, Sayre JW, McNitt-Gray M, Katada K (2008) Effect of edge-preserving adaptive image filter on low-contrast detectability in CT systems: application of ROC analysis. Int J Biomed Imaging 2008:379486

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Li K, Tang J, Chen GH (2014) Statistical model based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) in clinical CT systems: experimental assessment of noise performance. Med Phys 41:041906

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Nishizawa M, Tanaka H, Watanabe Y, Kunitomi Y, Tsukabe A, Tomiyama N (2015) Model-based iterative reconstruction for detection of subtle hypoattenuation in early cerebral infarction: a phantom study. Jpn J Radiol 33:26–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Murphy KP, Crush L, O'Neill SB et al (2016) Feasibility of low-dose CT with model-based iterative image reconstruction in follow-up of patients with testicular cancer. Eur J Radiol Open 3:38–45

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Patino M, Fuentes JM, Hayano K, Kambadakone AR, Uyeda JW, Sahani DV (2015) A quantitative comparison of noise reduction across five commercial (hybrid and model-based) iterative reconstruction techniques: an anthropomorphic phantom study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:W176–W183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nakamoto A, Kim T, Hori M et al (2015) Clinical evaluation of image quality and radiation dose reduction in upper abdominal computed tomography using model-based iterative reconstruction; comparison with filtered back projection and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. Eur J Radiol 84:1715–1723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim JH, Choo KS, Moon TY et al (2015) 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. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-4060-1

    Google Scholar 

  26. Khawaja RD, Singh S, Blake M et al (2015) Ultra-low dose abdominal MDCT: using a knowledge-based Iterative Model Reconstruction technique for substantial dose reduction in a prospective clinical study. Eur J Radiol 84:2–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Husarik DB, Alkadhi H, Puippe GD et al (2015) Model-based iterative reconstruction for improvement of low-contrast detectability in liver CT at reduced radiation dose: ex-vivo experience. Clin Radiol 70:366–372

    Article  CAS  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. Yoon JH, Lee JM, Yu MH et al (2014) Comparison of iterative model-based reconstruction versus conventional filtered back projection and hybrid iterative reconstruction techniques: lesion conspicuity and influence of body size in anthropomorphic liver phantoms. J Comput Assist Tomogr 38:859–868

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Suzuki S, Haruyama T, Morita H, Takahashi Y, Matsumoto R (2014) Initial performance evaluation of iterative model reconstruction in abdominal computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 38:408–414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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 273:793–800

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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 

  33. 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 

  34. 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 48:598–606

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 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 

  36. Schaller F, Sedlmair M, Raupach R, Uder M, Lell M (2016) Noise reduction in abdominal computed tomography applying iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE). Acad Radiol 23:1230–1238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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 275:735–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gordic S, Desbiolles L, Stolzmann P et al (2014) Advanced modelled iterative reconstruction for abdominal CT: qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Clin Radiol 69:e497–e504

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Yoshifumi Narumi. 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 has received funding by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was not required because this study was not on human subjects. Written informed consent was not required for this study because this study was not on human subjects. Approval from the institutional animal care committee was not required because this study was not on animals. No study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported. Methodology: prospective, experimental, performed at one institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Osaka Medical College, 2-7, Daigaku-machi, Takatsuki, Osaka, Japan, 569-8686

    Atsushi Nakamoto, Yoshikazu Tanaka, Hiroshi Juri, Go Nakai & Yoshifumi Narumi

  2. Central Radiology Department, Osaka Medical College Hospital, Takatsuki, Osaka, Japan

    Shushi Yoshikawa

Authors
  1. Atsushi Nakamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yoshikazu Tanaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hiroshi Juri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Go Nakai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shushi Yoshikawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yoshifumi Narumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Atsushi Nakamoto.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nakamoto, A., Tanaka, Y., Juri, H. et al. Diagnostic performance of reduced-dose CT with a hybrid iterative reconstruction algorithm for the detection of hypervascular liver lesions: a phantom study. Eur Radiol 27, 2995–3003 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4687-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4687-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation