Assessment of Sub-milli-sievert Abdominal Computed Tomography with Iterative Reconstruction Techniques of Different Vendors

Overview

Journal World J Radiol

Publisher Baishideng Publishing Group

Specialty Radiology

Date 2016 Jul 1

PMID 27358690

Citations 3

Authors

Atul Padole

Nisha Sainani

Diego Lira

Ranish Deedar Ali Khawaja

Sarvenaz Pourjabbar

Roberto Lo Gullo

Alexi Otrakji

Mannudeep K Kalra

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aim: To assess diagnostic image quality of reduced dose (RD) abdominal computed tomography (CT) with 9 iterative reconstruction techniques (IRTs) from 4 different vendors to the standard of care (SD) CT.

Methods: In an Institutional Review Board approved study, 66 patients (mean age 60 ± 13 years, 44 men, and 22 women) undergoing routine abdomen CT on multi-detector CT (MDCT) scanners from vendors A, B, and C (≥ 64 row CT scanners) (22 patients each) gave written informed consent for acquisition of an additional RD CT series. Sinogram data of RD CT was reconstructed with two vendor-specific and a vendor-neutral IRTs (A-1, A-2, A-3; B-1, B-2, B-3; and C-1, C-2, C-3) and SD CT series with filtered back projection. Subjective image evaluation was performed by two radiologists for each SD and RD CT series blinded and independently. All RD CT series (198) were assessed first followed by SD CT series (66). Objective image noise was measured for SD and RD CT series. Data were analyzed by Wilcoxon signed rank, kappa, and analysis of variance tests.

Results: There were 13/50, 18/57 and 9/40 missed lesions (size 2-7 mm) on RD CT for vendor A, B, and C, respectively. Missed lesions includes liver cysts, kidney cysts and stone, gall stone, fatty liver, and pancreatitis. There were also 5, 4, and 4 pseudo lesions (size 2-3 mm) on RD CT for vendor A, B, and C, respectively. Lesions conspicuity was sufficient for clinical diagnostic performance for 6/24 (RD-A-1), 10/24 (RD-A-2), and 7/24 (RD-A-3) lesions for vendor A; 5/26 (RD-B-1), 6/26 (RD-B-2), and 7/26 (RD-B-3) lesions for vendor B; and 4/20 (RD-C-1) 6/20 (RD-C-2), and 10/20 (RD-C-3) lesions for vendor C (P = 0.9). Mean objective image noise in liver was significantly lower for RD A-1 compared to both RD A-2 and RD A-3 images (P < 0.001). Similarly, mean objective image noise lower for RD B-2 (compared to RD B-1, RD B-3) and RD C-3 (compared to RD C-1 and C-2) (P = 0.016).

Conclusion: Regardless of IRTs and MDCT vendors, abdominal CT acquired at mean CT dose index volume 1.3 mGy is not sufficient to retain clinical diagnostic performance.

Citing Articles

Visceral adipose tissue volume effect in Crohn's disease using reduced exposure CT enterography.

Hunter S, Baker M, Ream J, Sweet D, Austin N, Remer E J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023; 25(1):e14235.

PMID: 38059633 PMC: 10795447. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.14235.

Application of deep learning reconstruction of ultra-low-dose abdominal CT in the diagnosis of renal calculi.

Zhang X, Zhang G, Xu L, Bai X, Zhang J, Xu M Insights Imaging. 2022; 13(1):163.

PMID: 36209195 PMC: 9547757. DOI: 10.1186/s13244-022-01300-w.

Can fully iterative reconstruction technique enable routine abdominal CT at less than 1 mSv?.

Tabari A, Ramandeep S, Doda Khera R, Hoi Y, Angel E, Kalra M Eur J Radiol Open. 2019; 6:225-230.

PMID: 31304196 PMC: 6603257. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejro.2019.05.001.

References

Singh S, Kalra M, Hsieh J, Licato P, Do S, Pien H . Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology. 2010; 257(2):373-83. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10092212. View

Schauer D, Linton O . National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements report shows substantial medical exposure increase. Radiology. 2009; 253(2):293-6. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2532090494. View

McCollough C, Chen G, Kalender W, Leng S, Samei E, Taguchi K . Achieving routine submillisievert CT scanning: report from the summit on management of radiation dose in CT. Radiology. 2012; 264(2):567-80. PMC: 3401354. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12112265. View

Padole A, Singh S, Lira D, Blake M, Pourjabbar S, Ali Khawaja R . Assessment of Filtered Back Projection, Adaptive Statistical, and Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction for Reduced Dose Abdominal Computed Tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2015; 39(4):462-7. DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000231. View

Singh S, Kalra M, Do S, Thibault J, Pien H, OConnor O . Comparison of hybrid and pure iterative reconstruction techniques with conventional filtered back projection: dose reduction potential in the abdomen. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2012; 36(3):347-53. DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e31824e639e. View

Hricak H, Brenner D, Adelstein S, Frush D, Hall E, Howell R . Managing radiation use in medical imaging: a multifaceted challenge. Radiology. 2010; 258(3):889-905. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10101157. View

Singh S, Kalra M, Ali Khawaja R, Padole A, Pourjabbar S, Lira D . Radiation dose optimization and thoracic computed tomography. Radiol Clin North Am. 2013; 52(1):1-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2013.08.004. View

Kulkarni N, Uppot R, Eisner B, Sahani D . Radiation dose reduction at multidetector CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction for evaluation of urolithiasis: how low can we go?. Radiology. 2012; 265(1):158-66. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12112470. View

Kalra M, Woisetschlager M, Dahlstrom N, Singh S, Lindblom M, Choy G . Radiation dose reduction with Sinogram Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction technique for abdominal computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2012; 36(3):339-46. DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e31825586c0. View

10.

Vardhanabhuti V, Loader R, Mitchell G, Riordan R, Roobottom C . Image quality assessment of standard- and low-dose chest CT using filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and novel model-based iterative reconstruction algorithms. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 200(3):545-52. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.9424. View

11.

Pourjabbar S, Singh S, Singh A, Johnston R, Shenoy-Bhangle A, Do S . Preliminary results: prospective clinical study to assess image-based iterative reconstruction for abdominal computed tomography acquired at 2 radiation dose levels. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2014; 38(1):117-22. DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e3182a17629. View

12.

Pooler B, Lubner M, Kim D, Ryckman E, Sivalingam S, Tang J . Prospective trial of the detection of urolithiasis on ultralow dose (sub mSv) noncontrast computerized tomography: direct comparison against routine low dose reference standard. J Urol. 2014; 192(5):1433-9. PMC: 4570499. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.05.089. View

13.

Vardhanabhuti V, Riordan R, Mitchell G, Hyde C, Roobottom C . Image comparative assessment using iterative reconstructions: clinical comparison of low-dose abdominal/pelvic computed tomography between adaptive statistical, model-based iterative reconstructions and traditional filtered back projection in 65.... Invest Radiol. 2013; 49(4):209-16. DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000017. View

14.

Ali Khawaja R, Singh S, Blake M, Harisinghani M, Choy G, Karosmangulu A . Ultra-low dose abdominal MDCT: using a knowledge-based Iterative Model Reconstruction technique for substantial dose reduction in a prospective clinical study. Eur J Radiol. 2014; 84(1):2-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.09.022. View

15.

Kalra M, Maher M, Toth T, Hamberg L, Blake M, Shepard J . Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology. 2004; 230(3):619-28. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2303021726. View

16.

Yasaka K, Katsura M, Akahane M, Sato J, Matsuda I, Ohtomo K . Model-based iterative reconstruction for reduction of radiation dose in abdominopelvic CT: comparison to adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. Springerplus. 2013; 2(1):209. PMC: 3655211. DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-209. View

17.

Volders D, Bols A, Haspeslagh M, Coenegrachts K . Model-based iterative reconstruction and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominal CT: comparison of image quality in the detection of colorectal liver metastases. Radiology. 2013; 269(2):469-74. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13130002. View

18.

Christner J, Kofler J, McCollough C . Estimating effective dose for CT using dose-length product compared with using organ doses: consequences of adopting International Commission on Radiological Protection publication 103 or dual-energy scanning. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 194(4):881-9. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.3462. View