Comparison of image quality and visibility of normal and abnormal findings at submillisievert chest CT using filtered back projection, iterative model reconstruction (IMR) and iDose⁴™

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Azien Laqmani^a ; ^{a.laqmani@uke.de" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author} ; Maxim Avanesov^a ; Sebastian Butscheidt^a ; Maximilian Kurfü ; rst^a ; Susanne Sehner^b ; Jakob Schmidt-Holtz^a ; Thorsten Derlin^a ; Cyrus Behzadi^a ; Hans D. Nagel^c ; Gerhard Adam^a ; Marc Regier^a
• 关键词：BMI ; body mass-index ; BR ; BodyRoutine ; CTDIvol ; volume weighted CT dose index ; FBP ; filtered back projection ; HU ; hounsfield units ; IMR ; iterative model reconstruction ; IR ; iterative reconstruction ; OIN ; objective image noise ; ROI ; regions of interest ; SD ; standard deviations ; smSv-CT ; submillisievert chest CT ; 95%-CIs ; 95% confidence intervals
• 刊名：European Journal of Radiology
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：November 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：85
• 期：11
• 页码：1971-1979
• 全文大小：7920 K

文摘

To compare both image quality and visibility of normal and abnormal findings at submillisievert chest CT (smSv-CT) using filtered back projection (FBP) and the two different iterative reconstruction (IR) techniques iterative model reconstruction (IMR) and iDose⁴™.

Materials and methods

This institutional review board approved study was based on retrospective interpretation of clinically indicated acquired data. The requirement to obtain informed consent was waived.

81 patients with suspected pneumonia underwent smSv-CT (Brilliance iCT, Philips Healthcare; mean effective dose: 0.86 ± 0.2 mSv). Data were reconstructed using FBP and two different IR techniques iDose⁴™ and IMR (Philips Healthcare) at various iteration levels. Objective image noise (OIN) was measured. Two experienced readers independently assessed all images for image noise, image appearance and visibility of normal anatomic and abnormal findings. A random intercept model was used for statistical analysis.

Results

Compared to FBP and iDose⁴™, IMR reduced OIN up to 88% and 72%, respectively (p < 0.001). A mild blotchy image appearance was seen in IMR images, affecting diagnostic confidence. iDose⁴™ images provided satisfactory to good image quality for visibility of normal and abnormal findings and were superior to FBP (p < 0.001). IMR images were significantly inferior for visibility of normal structures compared to iDose⁴™, while being superior for visibility of abnormal findings except for reticular pattern (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

IMR results for visibility of normal and abnormal lung findings are heterogeneous, indicating that IMR may not represent a priority technique for clinical routine. iDose⁴™ represents a suitable method for evaluation of lung tissue at submillisievert chest CT.