• Korean J Radiol · Sep 2018

    Contrast-Enhanced CT with Knowledge-Based Iterative Model Reconstruction for the Evaluation of Parotid Gland Tumors: A Feasibility Study.

    • Chae Jung Park, Ki Wook Kim, Ho-Joon Lee, Myeong-Jin Kim, and Jinna Kim.
    • Department of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, Korea.
    • Korean J Radiol. 2018 Sep 1; 19 (5): 957-964.

    ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine the diagnostic utility of low-dose CT with knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction (IMR) for the evaluation of parotid gland tumors.Materials And MethodsThis prospective study included 42 consecutive patients who had undergone low-dose contrast-enhanced CT for the evaluation of suspected parotid gland tumors. Prior or subsequent non-low-dose CT scans within 12 months were available in 10 of the participants. Background noise (BN), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were compared between non-low-dose CT images and images generated using filtered back projection (FBP), hybrid iterative reconstruction (iDose4; Philips Healthcare), and knowledge-based IMR. Subjective image quality was rated by two radiologists using five-point grading scales to assess the overall image quality, delineation of lesion contour, image sharpness, and noise.ResultsWith the IMR algorithm, background noise (IMR, 4.24 ± 3.77; iDose4, 8.77 ± 3.85; FBP, 11.73 ± 4.06; p = 0.037 [IMR vs. iDose4] and p < 0.001 [IMR vs. FBP]) was significantly lower and SNR (IMR, 23.93 ± 7.49; iDose4, 10.20 ± 3.29; FBP, 7.33 ± 2.03; p = 0.011 [IMR vs. iDose4] and p < 0.001 [IMR vs. FBP]) was significantly higher compared with the other two algorithms. The CNR was also significantly higher with the IMR compared with the FBP (25.76 ± 11.88 vs. 9.02 ± 3.18, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in BN, SNR, and CNR between low-dose CT with the IMR algorithm and non-low-dose CT. Subjective image analysis revealed that IMR-generated low-dose CT images showed significantly better overall image quality and delineation of lesion contour with lesser noise, compared with those generated using FBP by both reviewers 1 and 2 (4 vs. 3; 4 vs. 3; and 3-4 vs. 2; p < 0.05 for all pairs), although there was no significant difference in subjective image quality scores between IMR-generated low-dose CT and non-low-dose CT images.ConclusionIterative model reconstruction-generated low-dose CT is an alternative to standard non-low-dose CT without significantly affecting image quality for the evaluation of parotid gland tumors.

      Pubmed     Free 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…