Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate both in vivo and in phantom studies, dose reduction, and image quality of body CT reconstructed with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR), performed during patient follow-ups for lymphoma.

Methods

This study included 40 patients (mean age 49 years) with lymphoma. All underwent reduced-dose CT during follow-up, reconstructed using MBIR or 50 % advanced statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR). All had previously undergone a standard dose CT with filtered back projection (FBP) reconstruction. The volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), the density measures in liver, spleen, fat, air, and muscle, and the image quality (noise and signal to noise ratio, SNR) (ANOVA) observed using standard or reduced-dose CT were compared both in patients and a phantom study (Catphan 600) (Kruskal Wallis).

Results

The CTDIvol was decreased on reduced-dose body CT (4.06 mGy vs. 15.64 mGy p < 0.0001). SNR was higher in reduced-dose CT reconstructed with MBIR than in 50 % ASIR or than standard dose CT with FBP (patients, p ≤ 0.01; phantoms, p = 0.003). Low contrast detectability and spatial resolution in phantoms were not altered on MBIR-reconstructed CT (p ≥ 0.11).

Conclusion

Reduced-dose CT with MBIR reconstruction can decrease radiation dose delivered to patients with lymphoma, while keeping an image quality similar to that obtained on standard-dose CT.

Key Points

• In lymphoma patients, CT dose reduction is a major concern.

• Reduced-dose body CT provides a fourfold radiation dose reduction.

• Optimized CT reconstruction techniques (MBIR) can maintain image quality.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography–an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mettler FA, Bhargavan M, Faulkner K et al (2009) Radiologic and nuclear medicine studies in the United States and worldwide: frequency, radiation dose, and comparison with other radiation sources—1950–20071. Radiology 253:520–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bernier MO, Rehel JL, Brisse HJ et al (2012) Radiation exposure from CT in early childhood: a French large-scale multicentre study. Br J Radiol 85:53–60

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hall EJ, Brenner DJ (2008) Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Br J Radiol 81:362–378

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z et al (2013) Cancer risk in 680 000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ 346

  7. Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP et al (2012) Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 380:499–505

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2012) Cancer risks from CT scans: now we have data, what next? Radiology 265:330–331

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gardavaud F, Luciani A, Rahmouni A (2012) CT scans in childhood and risk of leukaemia and brain tumours. Lancet 380:1735, author reply 1736-1737

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tubiana M, Feinendegen LE, Yang C, Kaminski JM (2009) The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data1. Radiology 251:13–22

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Journy N, Rehel JL, Ducou Le Pointe H et al (2014) Are the studies on cancer risk from CT scans biased by indication? Elements of answer from a large-scale cohort study in France. Br J Cancer. doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.526

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Recher C, Coiffier B, Haioun C et al (2011) Intensified chemotherapy with ACVBP plus rituximab versus standard CHOP plus rituximab for the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (LNH03-2B): an open-label randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet 378:1858–1867

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dreyling M, Thieblemont C, Gallamini A et al (2013) ESMO Consensus conferences: guidelines on malignant lymphoma. part 2: marginal zone lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, peripheral T-cell lymphoma. Ann Oncol. doi:10.1093/annonc/mds643

    Google Scholar 

  14. Tilly H, Vitolo U, Walewski J et al (2012) Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL): ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 23:vii78–vii82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zelenetz AD, Gordon LI, Wierda WG et al (2014) Non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, version 4.2014. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 12:1282–1303

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Chalaye J, Luciani A, Enache C et al (2014) Clinical impact of contrast-enhanced computed tomography combined with low-dose F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography on routine lymphoma patient management. Leuk Lymphoma. doi:10.3109/10428194.2014.900761

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF et al (2014) Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol. doi:10.1200/jco.2013.54.8800

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Fleischmann D, Boas FE (2011) Computed tomography–old ideas and new technology. Eur Radiol 21:510–517

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kaza RK, Platt JF, Goodsitt MM et al (2014) Emerging techniques for dose optimization in abdominal CT. Radiographics 34:4–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Beister M, Kolditz D, Kalender WA (2012) Iterative reconstruction methods in X-ray CT. Phys Med 28:94–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hara AK, Paden RG, Silva AC, Kujak JL, Lawder HJ, Pavlicek W (2009) Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:764–771

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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 

  23. 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 experience1. Radiology 254:145–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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 194:191–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Singh S, Kalra MK, Hsieh J et al (2010) Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 257:373–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Thibault JB, Sauer KD, Bouman CA, Hsieh J (2007) A three-dimensional statistical approach to improved image quality for multislice helical CT. Med Phys 34:4526–4544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Smith EA, Dillman JR, Goodsitt MM, Christodoulou EG, Keshavarzi N, Strouse PJ (2013) Model-based iterative reconstruction: effect on patient radiation dose and image quality in pediatric body CT. Radiology. doi:10.1148/radiol.13130362

    Google Scholar 

  29. Choo JY, Goo JM, Lee CH, Park CM, Park SJ, Shim MS (2013) Quantitative analysis of emphysema and airway measurements according to iterative reconstruction algorithms: comparison of filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and model-based iterative reconstruction. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-013-3078-5

    Google Scholar 

  30. 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. doi:10.1148/radiol.13130002

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME et al (2007) Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 25:579–586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Katsura M, Matsuda I, Akahane M et al (2012) Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: comparison with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Eur Radiol 22:1613–1623

    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. Gonzalez-Guindalini FD, Botelho MP, Tore HG, Ahn RW, Gordon LI, Yaghmai V (2013) MDCT of chest, abdomen, and pelvis using attenuation-based automated tube voltage selection in combination with iterative reconstruction: an intrapatient study of radiation dose and image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:1075–1082

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 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 Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Nishida J, Kitagawa K, Nagata M, Yamazaki A, Nagasawa N, Sakuma H (2013) Model-based iterative reconstruction for multi–detector row CT assessment of the Adamkiewicz artery. Radiology. doi:10.1148/radiol.13122019

    Google Scholar 

  37. 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 

  38. 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 4:661–669

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Haioun C, Itti E, Rahmouni A et al (2005) [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in aggressive lymphoma: an early prognostic tool for predicting patient outcome. Blood 106:1376–1381

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Coppenrath E, Meindl T, Herzog P et al (2006) Dose reduction in multidetector CT of the urinary tract. Studies in a phantom model. Eur Radiol 16:1982–1989

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Bjorkdahl P, Nyman U (2010) Using 100- instead of 120-kVp computed tomography to diagnose pulmonary embolism almost halves the radiation dose with preserved diagnostic quality. Acta Radiol 51:260–270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Avrin DE, Macovski A, Zatz LE (1978) Clinical application of Compton and photo-electric reconstruction in computed tomography: preliminary results. Investig Radiol 13:217–222

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Professor Alain Luciani MD PHD. Philippe Richard is an employee from GE Healthcare France. All non industrial authors belong to the CHU Henri Mondor institution and were always in control of data processing. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional review board approval was obtained (IRB 00003835). Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. Methodology: retrospective, observational, performed at one institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Imagerie Médicale, Créteil, 94010, France

    Edouard Hérin, François Gardavaud, Mélanie Chiaradia, Pauline Beaussart, Madeleine Cavet, Jean-François Deux, Alain Rahmouni & Alain Luciani

  2. Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris Est Créteil, Créteil, 94010, France

    Edouard Hérin, Mélanie Chiaradia, Madeleine Cavet, Jean-François Deux, Corinne Haioun, Emmanuel Itti, Alain Rahmouni & Alain Luciani

  3. GE Healthcare France, Buc, France

    Philippe Richard

  4. AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Hémopathies Lymphoïdes, Créteil, 94010, France

    Corinne Haioun

  5. AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Médecine Nucléaire, Créteil, 94010, France

    Emmanuel Itti

  6. INSERM Unité U 955, Equipe 18, Créteil, 94010, France

    Alain Luciani

  7. AP-HP, Groupe Henri Mondor Albert Chenevier, Imagerie Médicale, CHU Henri Mondor, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 94010, Créteil Cedex, France

    Alain Luciani

Authors
  1. Edouard Hérin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. François Gardavaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mélanie Chiaradia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pauline Beaussart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Philippe Richard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Madeleine Cavet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jean-François Deux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Corinne Haioun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Emmanuel Itti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Alain Rahmouni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Alain Luciani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alain Luciani.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hérin, E., Gardavaud, F., Chiaradia, M. et al. 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 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3656-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3656-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation