• Eur J Radiol · Sep 2015

    Comparative Study

    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.

    • Atsushi Nakamoto, Tonsok Kim, Masatoshi Hori, Hiromitsu Onishi, Takahiro Tsuboyama, Makoto Sakane, Mitsuaki Tatsumi, and Noriyuki Tomiyama.
    • Department of Radiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2, Yamadaoka, Osaka, Suita Zip: 565-0871, Japan. Electronic address: a-nakamoto@radiol.med.osaka-u.ac.jp.
    • Eur J Radiol. 2015 Sep 1; 84 (9): 1715-23.

    PurposeTo evaluate the image quality of upper abdominal CT images reconstructed with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) in comparison with filtered back projection (FBP) and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) on scans acquired with various radiation exposure dose protocols.Materials And MethodsThis prospective study was approved by our institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained from all 90 patients who underwent both control-dose (CD) and reduced-dose (RD) CT of the upper abdomen (unenhanced: n=45, contrast-enhanced: n=45). The RD scan protocol was randomly selected from three protocols; Protocol A: 12.5% dose, Protocol B: 25% dose, Protocol C: 50% dose. Objective image noise, signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio for the liver parenchyma, visual image score and lesion conspicuity were compared among CD images of FBP and RD images of FBP, ASIR and MBIR.ResultsRD images of MBIR yielded significantly lower objective image noise and higher SNR compared with RD images of FBP and ASIR for all protocols (P<.01) and CD images of FBP for Protocol C (P<.05). Although the subjective image quality of RD images of MBIR was almost acceptable for Protocol C, it was inferior to that of CD images of FBP for Protocols A and B (P<.0083). The conspicuity of the small lesions in RD images of MBIR tended to be superior to that in RD images of FBP and ASIR and inferior to that in CD images for Protocols A and B, although the differences were not significant (P>.0083).ConclusionAlthough 12.5%-dose MBIR images (mean size-specific dose estimates [SSDE] of 1.13mGy) yielded objective image noise and SNR comparable to CD-FBP images, at least a 50% dose (mean SSDE of 4.63mGy) would be needed to maintain the subjective image quality and the lesion conspicuity.Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

      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…