Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

What is the preferred strength setting of the sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction algorithm in abdominal CT imaging?

  • Published:
Radiological Physics and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Our primary objective in this study was to determine the preferred strength setting for the sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction algorithm (SAFIRE) in abdominal computed tomography (CT) imaging. Sixteen consecutive clinical CT scans of the abdomen were reconstructed by use of traditional filtered back projection (FBP) and 5 SAFIRE strengths: S1–S5. Six readers of differing experience were asked to rank the images on preference for overall diagnostic quality. The contrast-to-noise ratio was not significantly different between SAFIRE S1 and FBP, but increased with increasing SAFIRE strength. For pooled data, S2 and S3 were preferred equally but both were preferred over all other reconstructions. S5 was the least preferred, with FBP the next least preferred. This represents a marked disparity between the image quality based on quantitative parameters and qualitative preference. Care should be taken to factor in qualitative in addition to quantitative aspects of image quality when one is optimizing iterative reconstruction images.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT). ICRP Publication 102. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(1):1–79.

  2. Kalender WA. X-ray computed tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51(13):R29–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Defrise M, Gullberg GT. Image reconstruction. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51(13):R139–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kalra MK, Woisetschlager M, Dahlstrom N, et al. Radiation dose reduction with sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction technique for abdominal computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2012;36:339–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sarabjeet S, Mannudeep K, Jiang H, et al. Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology. 2010;257:373–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Deak Z, Grimm JM, Treitl M. Filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and a model-based iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT: an Experimental clinical study. Radiology. 2013;266:197–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wen JE, Fu HY, Bo L, et al. Can sinogram-affirmed iterative (SAFIRE) reconstruction improve imaging quality on low-dose lung ct screening compared with traditional filtered back projection (FBP) reconstruction? J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2013;37:301–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang R, Schoepf UJ, Wu R, Nance JW Jr, Lv B, Yang H, Li F, Lu D, Zhang Z. Diagnostic accuracy of coronary CT angiography: comparison of filtered back projection and iterative reconstruction with different strengths. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2014;38((2):179–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wuest W, May MS, Scharf M, Layritz C, Eisentopf J, Ropers D, Pflederer T, Uder M, Achenbach S, Lell MM. Stent evaluation in low-dose coronary CT angiography: effect of different iterative reconstruction settings. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2013;7(5):319–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hwang HJ, Seo JB, Lee HJ, Lee SM, Kim EY, Oh SY, Kim JE. Low-dose chest computed tomography with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction, iterative reconstruction in image space, and filtered back projection: studies on image quality. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2013;37(4):610–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pontana F, Pagniez J, Duhamel A, et al. Reduced dose low voltage chest CT angiography with sinogram affirmed iterative reconstruction versus standard dose filtered back projection. Radiology. 2013;267:609–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hara AK, Paden RG, Silva AC, Kujak JL, Lawder HJ, Pavlicek W. Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(3):764–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, 169 Ashley Avenue, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA

    Andrew D. Hardie, Rachel M. Nelson, Robert Egbert, William J. Rieter & Sameer V. Tipnis

  2. Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, 25 Courtenay Dr. MSC 226, Charleston, SC, 29401, USA

    Andrew D. Hardie

Authors
  1. Andrew D. Hardie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rachel M. Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert Egbert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. William J. Rieter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sameer V. Tipnis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew D. Hardie.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hardie, A.D., Nelson, R.M., Egbert, R. et al. What is the preferred strength setting of the sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction algorithm in abdominal CT imaging?. Radiol Phys Technol 8, 60–63 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-014-0288-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-014-0288-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation