European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 7, pp 2995–3003 | Cite as

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

  • Atsushi Nakamoto
  • Yoshikazu Tanaka
  • Hiroshi Juri
  • Go Nakai
  • Shushi Yoshikawa
  • Yoshifumi Narumi
Computed Tomography



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


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.


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).


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.


Diagnostic imaging Multidetector computed tomography Image reconstruction Radiation dosage Liver 



Iterative reconstruction


Filtered back projection


Adaptive iterative dose reduction 3-dimensional




High-contrast lesion


Low-contrast lesion


Quantum denoising filter



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.


  1. 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 89:20150495CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 40:1843–1852CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 276:233–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 39:629–634CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 202:2–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 95:47–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 54:869–875CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 37:426–431CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 37:52–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chakraborty DP (2008) Validation and statistical power comparison of methods for analyzing free-response observer performance studies. Acad Radiol 15:1554–1566CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chakraborty DP (2006) Analysis of location specific observer performance data: validated extensions of the jackknife free-response (JAFROC) method. Acad Radiol 13:1187–1193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chakraborty DP, Berbaum KS (2004) Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation. Med Phys 31:2313–2330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zachrisson S, Vikgren J, Svalkvist A et al (2009) Effect of clinical experience of chest tomosynthesis on detection of pulmonary nodules. Acta Radiol 50:884–891CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 276:499–506CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 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–W152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 269:511–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 24:2989–3002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 201:1291–1297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 2008:379486CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 41:041906CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 33:26–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 3:38–45CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 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–W183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 84:1715–1723CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. 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 84:2–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 70:366–372CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 25:2362–2370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 38:859–868CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 38:408–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 273:793–800CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 269:469–474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 266:197–206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 48:598–606CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 199:1266–1274CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schaller F, Sedlmair M, Raupach R, Uder M, Lell M (2016) Noise reduction in abdominal computed tomography applying iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE). Acad Radiol 23:1230–1238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 275:735–745CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 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–e504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyOsaka Medical CollegeTakatsukiJapan
  2. 2.Central Radiology DepartmentOsaka Medical College HospitalTakatsukiJapan

Personalised recommendations