• Radiology · Nov 2013

    Comparative Study

    Model-based iterative reconstruction and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominal CT: comparison of image quality in the detection of colorectal liver metastases.

    • David Volders, Alain Bols, Marc Haspeslagh, and Kenneth Coenegrachts.
    • Departments of Radiology, Oncology, and Hospital Administration and Statistics, AZ St.-Jan Brugge-Oostende AV, Ruddershove 10, B-8000 Bruges, Belgium.
    • Radiology. 2013 Nov 1; 269 (2): 469-74.

    PurposeTo prospectively evaluate dose reduction and image quality characteristics of abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scans reconstructed with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) compared with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) in oncology patients with colorectal liver metastases.Materials And MethodsThe study complied with HIPAA guidelines and was approved by the ethics committee of the institutional review board. All patients gave written informed consent. Fifty-one patients with colorectal liver metastases underwent body CT (thorax and abdomen) with a 64-section multidetector unit. With a radiation dose reduction by 2.36 mGy compared to standard of care CT with ASIR 50% (radiation dose, 7.54 mGy), MBIR can provide diagnostically acceptable CT scans without compromising image quality. Two radiologists independently assessed randomized images in a blinded manner. Imaging sets were compared for lesion detection, lesion conspicuity, overall image quality, and signal-to-noise ratio with a paired sample t test. Inter- and intraobserver agreement was assessed with the Cohen κ.ResultsThe mean volume CT dose index was 5.18 mGy ± 0.76, mean dose-length product 374 mGy · cm ± 63.47, mean effective diameter 29.38 cm ± 3.46, and mean size-specific dose estimate 6.52 mGy ± 0.73. In small liver lesions (<10 mm), detection and conspicuity were significantly higher with MBIR than with ASIR for both right (t = 3.245, P = .004 and t = 2.696, P = .013, respectively) and left (t = 2.390, P = .038 and t = 2.283, P = .046) liver lobes. Subjective image noise (t = 4.506, P < .001), artifacts (t = 3.479, P = .001), and diagnostic confidence (t = 2.643, P = .011) were significantly better with MBIR than with ASIR.ConclusionMBIR performed better than ASIR 50% at providing diagnostically acceptable CT scans without compromising image quality and in the detection of colorectal liver metastases.RSNA, 2013

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.