1
|
Park HJ, Choi SY, Lee JE, Lim S, Lee MH, Yi BH, Cha JG, Min JH, Lee B, Jung Y. Deep learning image reconstruction algorithm for abdominal multidetector CT at different tube voltages: assessment of image quality and radiation dose in a phantom study. Eur Radiol 2022; 32:3974-3984. [DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08459-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2021] [Revised: 10/15/2021] [Accepted: 10/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|
2
|
Fletcher JG, DeLone DR, Kotsenas AL, Campeau NG, Lehman VT, Yu L, Leng S, Holmes DR, Edwards PK, Johnson MP, Michalak GJ, Carter RE, McCollough CH. Evaluation of Lower-Dose Spiral Head CT for Detection of Intracranial Findings Causing Neurologic Deficits. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019; 40:1855-1863. [PMID: 31649155 DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.a6251] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2019] [Accepted: 08/21/2019] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Despite the frequent use of unenhanced head CT for the detection of acute neurologic deficit, the radiation dose for this exam varies widely. Our aim was to evaluate the performance of lower-dose head CT for detection of intracranial findings resulting in acute neurologic deficit. MATERIALS AND METHODS Projection data from 83 patients undergoing unenhanced spiral head CT for suspected neurologic deficits were collected. Cases positive for infarction, intra-axial hemorrhage, mass, or extra-axial hemorrhage required confirmation by histopathology, surgery, progression of findings, or corresponding neurologic deficit; cases negative for these target diagnoses required negative assessments by two neuroradiologists and a clinical neurologist. A routine dose head CT was obtained using 250 effective mAs and iterative reconstruction. Lower-dose configurations were reconstructed (25-effective mAs iterative reconstruction, 50-effective mAs filtered back-projection and iterative reconstruction, 100-effective mAs filtered back-projection and iterative reconstruction, 200-effective mAs filtered back-projection). Three neuroradiologists circled findings, indicating diagnosis, confidence (0-100), and image quality. The difference between the jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic figure of merit at routine and lower-dose configurations was estimated. A lower 95% CI estimate of the difference greater than -0.10 indicated noninferiority. RESULTS Forty-two of 83 patients had 70 intracranial findings (29 infarcts, 25 masses, 10 extra- and 6 intra-axial hemorrhages) at routine head CT (CT dose index = 38.3 mGy). The routine-dose jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic figure of merit was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.81-0.93). Noninferiority was shown for 100-effective mAs iterative reconstruction (figure of merit difference, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.004) and 200-effective mAs filtered back-projection (-0.02; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.02) but not for 100-effective mAs filtered back-projection (-0.06; 95% CI, -0.10 to -0.02) or lower-dose levels. Image quality was better at higher-dose levels and with iterative reconstruction (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS Observer performance for dose levels using 100-200 eff mAs was noninferior to that observed at 250 effective mAs with iterative reconstruction, with iterative reconstruction preserving noninferiority at a mean CT dose index of 15.2 mGy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J G Fletcher
- From the Departments of Radiology (J.G.F., D.R.D., A.L.K., N.G.C., V.T.L., L.Y., S.L., G.J.M., C.H.M.)
| | - D R DeLone
- From the Departments of Radiology (J.G.F., D.R.D., A.L.K., N.G.C., V.T.L., L.Y., S.L., G.J.M., C.H.M.)
| | - A L Kotsenas
- From the Departments of Radiology (J.G.F., D.R.D., A.L.K., N.G.C., V.T.L., L.Y., S.L., G.J.M., C.H.M.)
| | - N G Campeau
- From the Departments of Radiology (J.G.F., D.R.D., A.L.K., N.G.C., V.T.L., L.Y., S.L., G.J.M., C.H.M.)
| | - V T Lehman
- From the Departments of Radiology (J.G.F., D.R.D., A.L.K., N.G.C., V.T.L., L.Y., S.L., G.J.M., C.H.M.)
| | - L Yu
- From the Departments of Radiology (J.G.F., D.R.D., A.L.K., N.G.C., V.T.L., L.Y., S.L., G.J.M., C.H.M.)
| | - S Leng
- From the Departments of Radiology (J.G.F., D.R.D., A.L.K., N.G.C., V.T.L., L.Y., S.L., G.J.M., C.H.M.)
| | - D R Holmes
- Biomedical Imaging Resource (D.R.H., P.E.)
| | | | - M P Johnson
- Biomedical Statistics and Informatics (M.P.J.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - G J Michalak
- From the Departments of Radiology (J.G.F., D.R.D., A.L.K., N.G.C., V.T.L., L.Y., S.L., G.J.M., C.H.M.)
| | - R E Carter
- Health Sciences Research (R.E.C.), Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - C H McCollough
- From the Departments of Radiology (J.G.F., D.R.D., A.L.K., N.G.C., V.T.L., L.Y., S.L., G.J.M., C.H.M.)
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Southard RN, Bardo DME, Temkit MH, Thorkelson MA, Augustyn RA, Martinot CA. Comparison of Iterative Model Reconstruction versus Filtered Back-Projection in Pediatric Emergency Head CT: Dose, Image Quality, and Image-Reconstruction Times. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019; 40:866-871. [PMID: 30975652 DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.a6034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2018] [Accepted: 02/27/2019] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Noncontrast CT of the head is the initial imaging test for traumatic brain injury, stroke, or suspected nonaccidental trauma. Low-dose head CT protocols using filtered back-projection are susceptible to increased noise and decreased image quality. Iterative reconstruction noise suppression allows the use of lower-dose techniques with maintained image quality. We review our experience with children undergoing emergency head CT examinations reconstructed using knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction versus standard filtered back-projection, comparing reconstruction times, radiation dose, and objective and subjective image quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS This was a retrospective study comparing 173 children scanned using standard age-based noncontrast head CT protocols reconstructed with filtered back-projection with 190 children scanned using low-dose protocols reconstructed with iterative model reconstruction. ROIs placed on the frontal white matter and thalamus yielded signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios. Volume CT dose index and study reconstruction times were recorded. Random subgroups of patients were selected for subjective image-quality review. RESULTS The volume CT dose index was significantly reduced in studies reconstructed with iterative model reconstruction compared with filtered back-projection, (mean, 24.4 ± 3.1 mGy versus 31.1 ± 6.0 mGy, P < .001), while the SNR and contrast-to-noise ratios improved 2-fold (P < .001). Radiologists graded iterative model reconstruction images as superior to filtered back-projection images for gray-white matter differentiation and anatomic detail (P < .001). The average reconstruction time of the filtered back-projection studies was 101 seconds, and with iterative model reconstruction, it was 147 seconds (P < .001), without a practical effect on work flow. CONCLUSIONS In children referred for emergency noncontrast head CT, optimized low-dose protocols with iterative model reconstruction allowed us to significantly reduce the relative dose, on average, 22% compared with filtered back-projection, with significantly improved objective and subjective image quality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R N Southard
- From the Departments of Medical Imaging (R.N.S., D.M.E.B., M.A.T., R.A.A., C.A.M.)
| | - D M E Bardo
- From the Departments of Medical Imaging (R.N.S., D.M.E.B., M.A.T., R.A.A., C.A.M.)
| | - M H Temkit
- Clinical Research (M.H.T.), Phoenix Children's Hospital, Phoenix Arizona
| | - M A Thorkelson
- From the Departments of Medical Imaging (R.N.S., D.M.E.B., M.A.T., R.A.A., C.A.M.)
| | - R A Augustyn
- From the Departments of Medical Imaging (R.N.S., D.M.E.B., M.A.T., R.A.A., C.A.M.)
| | - C A Martinot
- From the Departments of Medical Imaging (R.N.S., D.M.E.B., M.A.T., R.A.A., C.A.M.)
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
van Ommen F, Bennink E, Vlassenbroek A, Dankbaar JW, Schilham AMR, Viergever MA, de Jong HWAM. Image quality of conventional images of dual-layer SPECTRAL CT: A phantom study. Med Phys 2018; 45:3031-3042. [PMID: 29749624 DOI: 10.1002/mp.12959] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2017] [Revised: 04/16/2018] [Accepted: 04/26/2018] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Spectral CT using a dual layer detector offers the possibility of retrospectively introducing spectral information to conventional CT images. In theory, the dual-layer technology should not come with a dose or image quality penalty for conventional images. In this study, we evaluate the influence of a dual-layer detector (IQon Spectral CT, Philips Healthcare) on the image quality of conventional CT images, by comparing these images with those of a conventional but otherwise technically comparable single-layer CT scanner (Brilliance iCT, Philips Healthcare), by means of phantom experiments. METHODS For both CT scanners, conventional CT images were acquired using four adult scanning protocols: (a) body helical, (b) body axial, (c) head helical, and (d) head axial. A CATPHAN 600 phantom was scanned to conduct an assessment of image quality metrics at equivalent (CTDI) dose levels. Noise was characterized by means of noise power spectra (NPS) and standard deviation (SD) of a uniform region, and spatial resolution was evaluated with modulation transfer functions (MTF) of a tungsten wire. In addition, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), image uniformity, CT number linearity, slice thickness, slice spacing, and spatial linearity were measured and evaluated. Additional measurements of CNR, resolution and noise were performed in two larger phantoms. RESULTS The resolution levels at 50%, 10%, and 5% MTF of the iCT and IQon showed small, but significant differences up to 0.25 lp/cm for body scans, and up to 0.2 lp/cm for head scans in favor of the IQon. The iCT and IQon showed perfect CT linearity for body scans, but for head scans both scanners showed an underestimation of the CT numbers of materials with a high opacity. Slice thickness was slightly overestimated for both scanners. Slice spacing was comparable and reconstructed correctly. In addition, spatial linearity was excellent for both scanners, with a maximum error of 0.11 mm. CNR was higher on the IQon compared to the iCT for both normal and larger phantoms with differences up to 0.51. Spatial resolution did not change with phantom size, but noise levels increased significantly. For head scans, IQon had a noise level that was significantly lower than the iCT, on the other hand IQon showed noise levels significantly higher than the iCT for body scans. Still, these differences were well within the specified range of performance of iCT scanners. CONCLUSIONS At equivalent dose levels, this study showed similar quality of conventional images acquired on iCT and IQon for medium-sized phantoms and slightly degraded image quality for (very) large phantoms at lower tube voltages on the IQon. Accordingly, it may be concluded that the introduction of a dual-layer detector neither compromises image quality of conventional images nor increases radiation dose for normal-sized patients, and slightly degrades dose efficiency for large patients at 120 kVp and lower tube voltages.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fasco van Ommen
- Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, UMC Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Image Sciences Institute, UMC Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Edwin Bennink
- Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, UMC Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Image Sciences Institute, UMC Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Jan Willem Dankbaar
- Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, UMC Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Arnold M R Schilham
- Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, UMC Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Max A Viergever
- Image Sciences Institute, UMC Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Hugo W A M de Jong
- Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, UMC Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Image Sciences Institute, UMC Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|