Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 8, pp 4008–4015 | Cite as

CT reconstruction algorithms affect histogram and texture analysis: evidence for liver parenchyma, focal solid liver lesions, and renal cysts

  • Su Joa Ahn
  • Jung Hoon KimEmail author
  • Sang Min Lee
  • Sang Joon Park
  • Joon Koo Han
Computer Applications
  • 313 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the effects of different reconstruction algorithms on histogram and texture features in different targets.

Materials and methods

Among 3620 patients, 480 had normal liver parenchyma, 494 had focal solid liver lesions (metastases = 259; hepatocellular carcinoma = 99; hemangioma = 78; abscess = 32; and cholangiocarcinoma = 26), and 488 had renal cysts. CT images were reconstructed with filtered back-projection (FBP), hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR), and iterative model reconstruction (IMR) algorithms. Computerized histogram and texture analyses were performed by extracting 11 features.

Results

Different reconstruction algorithms had distinct, significant effects. IMR had a greater effect than HIR. For instance, IMR had a significant effect on five features of liver parenchyma, nine features of focal liver lesions, and four features of renal cysts on portal-phase scans and four, eight, and four features, respectively, on precontrast scans (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, different algorithms had a greater effect on focal liver lesions (six in HIR and nine in IMR on portal-phase, three in HIR, and eight in IMR on precontrast scans) than on liver parenchyma or cysts. The mean attenuation and standard deviation were not affected by the reconstruction algorithm (p > .05). Most parameters showed good or excellent intra- and interobserver agreement, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.634 to 0.972.

Conclusions

Different reconstruction algorithms affect histogram and texture features. Reconstruction algorithms showed stronger effects in focal liver lesions than in liver parenchyma or renal cysts.

Key Points

Imaging heterogeneities influenced the quantification of image features.

Different reconstruction algorithms had a significant effect on histogram and texture features.

Solid liver lesions were more affected than liver parenchyma or cysts.

Keywords

Liver Kidney Cyst Neoplasms Tomography 

Abbreviations

ASM

Angular second moment

FBP

Filtered back-projection

GLCM

Gray level co-occurrence matrix

HIR

Hybrid iterative reconstruction

ICC

Intraclass correlation coefficient

IDM

Inverse difference moment

IMR

Iterative model reconstruction

PACS

Picture archiving and communications system

ROI

Region of interest

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Bonnie Hami, M.A. (USA), for her editorial assistance in the preparation of this manuscript.

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Joon Koo Han, M.D.

Conflict of interest

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.

Statistics and biometry

Su Joa Ahn, MD, has significant statistical expertise and no complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained (IRB No. 1706–128-861).

Methodology

• Retrospective

• Diagnostic or prognostic study

• Performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2018_5829_MOESM1_ESM.docx (69 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 68.9 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Castellano G, Bonilha L, Li LM, Cendes F (2004) Texture analysis of medical images. Clin Radiol 59:1061–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gevaert O, Xu J, Hoang CD et al (2012) Non-small cell lung cancer: identifying prognostic imaging biomarkers by leveraging public gene expression microarray data--methods and preliminary results. Radiology 264:387–396CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Choi CM, Kim MY, Lee JC, Kim HJ (2014) Advanced lung adenocarcinoma harboring a mutation of the epidermal growth factor receptor: CT findings after tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. Radiology 270:574–582CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davnall F, Yip CS, Ljungqvist G et al (2012) Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: an emerging imaging tool for clinical practice? Insights Imaging 3:573–589CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ganeshan B, Miles KA (2013) Quantifying tumour heterogeneity with CT. Cancer Imaging 13:140–149CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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:e363–e369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 36:347–353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berrington de González A, Mahesh M, Kim KP et al (2009) Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 169:2071–2077CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hu MQ, Li M, Liu ZY, Huang MP, Liu H, Liang CH (2016) Image quality evaluation of iterative model reconstruction on low tube voltage (80 kVp) coronary CT angiography in an animal study. Acta Radiol 57:170–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nakaura T, Iyama Y, Kidoh M et al (2016) Comparison of iterative model, hybrid iterative, and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques in low-dose brain CT: impact of thin-slice imaging. Neuroradiology 58:245–251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schulz B, Beeres M, Bodelle B et al (2013) Performance of iterative image reconstruction in CT of the paranasal sinuses: a phantom study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 34:1072–1076CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barrett HH, Myers KJ, Hoeschen C, Kupinski MA, Little MP (2015) Task-based measures of image quality and their relation to radiation dose and patient risk. Phys Med Biol 60:R1–R75CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Solomon J, Mileto A, Nelson RC, Roy Choudhury K, Samei E (2016) Quantitative features of liver lesions, lung nodules, and renal stones at multi-detector row CT examinations: dependency on radiation dose and reconstruction algorithm. Radiology 279:185–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mortelé KJ, Ros PR (2001) Cystic focal liver lesions in the adult: differential CT and MR imaging features. Radiohgraphics 21:895–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chalian H, Tochetto SM, Töre HG, Rezai P, Yaghmai V (2012) Hepatic tumors: region-of-interest versus volumetric analysis for quantification of attenuation at CT. Radiology 262:853–861CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ahn SJ, Kim JH, Park SJ, Han JK (2016) Prediction of the therapeutic response after FOLFOX and FOLFIRI treatment for patients with liver metastasis from colorectal cancer using computerized CT texture analysis. Eur J Radiol 85:1867–1874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chee CG, Kim YH, Lee KH et al (2017) CT texture analysis in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a potential imaging biomarker for treatment response and prognosis. PLoS One 12:e0182883CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haider MA, Vosough A, Khalvati F, Kiss A, Ganeshan B, Bjarnason GA (2017) CT texture analysis: a potential tool for prediction of survival in patients with metastatic clear cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib. Cancer Imaging 17:4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Löve A, Olsson ML, Siemund R, Stålhammar F, Bjorkman-Burtscher IM, Söderberg M (2013) Six iterative reconstruction algorithms in brain CT: a phantom study on image quality at different radiation dose levels. Br J Radiol 86:20130388CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marin D, Choudhury KR, Gupta RT et al (2013) Clinical impact of an adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm for detection of hypervascular liver tumours using a low tube voltage, high tube current MDCT technique. Eur Radiol 23:3325–3335CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brown KM, Zabic S, Koehler T (2012) Acceleration of ML iterative algorithms for CT by the use of fast start images. Physics of Medical Imaging.  https://doi.org/10.1117/12.911412
  22. 22.
    Oda S, Utsunomiya D, Funama Y et al (2014) A knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction algorithm: can super-low-dose cardiac CT be applicable in clinical settings? Acad Radiol 21:104–110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Suchá D, Willemink MJ, de Jong PA et al (2014) The impact of a new model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm on prosthetic heart valve related artifacts at reduced radiation dose MDCT. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 30:785–793CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Miles KA, Ganeshan B, Griffiths MR, Young RC, Chatwin CR (2009) Colorectal cancer: texture analysis of portal phase hepatic CT images as a potential marker of survival. Radiology 250:444–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ng F, Kozarski R, Ganeshan B, Goh V (2013) Assessment of tumor heterogeneity by CT texture analysis: can the largest cross-sectional area be used as an alternative to whole tumor analysis? Eur J Radiol 82:342–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ozkan E, West A, Dedelow JA et al (2015) CT gray-level texture analysis as a quantitative imaging biomarker of epidermal growth factor receptor mutation status in adenocarcinoma of the lung. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:1016–1025CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Solomon J, Samei E (2014) A generic framework to simulate realistic lung, liver and renal pathologies in CT imaging. Phys Med Biol 59:6637–6657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologySeoul National University HospitalSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Radiology and Institute of Radiation MedicineSeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyHallym University Sacred Heart HospitalAnyang-siKorea

Personalised recommendations