三种不同重建算法对胃周CT动脉成像质量的影响
|
摘要
目的研究CT增强扫描后三种重建算法滤波反投影(Filtered Back Projection,FBP)、混合迭代重建(iDose~4)和基于模型的迭代重建(Iterative Model Reconstruction,IMR)对胃部血管成像质量的影响。方法前瞻性收集胃肿瘤患者共21例,CT动脉期图像分别用FBP、iDose~4和IMR方法重建,测量胃周各血管(腹主动脉、腹腔干动脉起始段、肝总动脉、脾动脉、胃左动脉、肠系膜上动脉、胃十二指肠动脉和胃网膜右动脉)的CT值、信噪比(SNR)和对比噪声比(CNR),采用配对t检验对比FBP、iDose~4和IMR之间的SNR及CNR差异。结果采用FBP、iDose~4及IMR重建算法的腹主动脉、腹腔干动脉起始段、肝总动脉、脾动脉、胃左动脉、肠系膜上动脉、胃十二指肠动脉和胃网膜右动脉SNR值范围分别是12.201～15.838、16.696～22.381、38.327～46.018;CNR值的范围分别是9.549～13.186、12.952～18.637、38.307～30.616,这三种重建算法的图像SNR及CNR差异有统计学意义,IMR图像的SNR和CNR值均显著大于iDose~4和FBP(P<0.001)。结论在相同扫描条件情况下,使用IMR技术相比于iDose~4和FBP更能够降低胃周血管的图像噪声,提高图像质量。
Objective To investigate the effects of filtered back projection(FBP), hybrid iterative reconstruction(iDose~4) and iterative model reconstruction(IMR) on the quality of gastric vessel imaging after CT enhanced scanning. Methods A total of 21 patients with gastric cancer were prospectively enrolled. The CT images in arterial phase were reconstructed by FBP, iDose~4 and IMR methods, respectively. The CT values, signal-noise-ratio(SNR) and contrast-noise-ratio(CNR) of perigastric arteries(abdominal aorta, celiac trunk, common hepatic artery, splenic artery, left gastric artery, superior mesenteric artery, gastroduodenal artery, and right gastroepiploic artery) were measured. The differences of SNR and CNR in different perigastric arteries using FBP, iDose~4 and IMR methods were compared by paired t-test. Results The SNR ranges of abdominal aorta, celiac trunk, common hepatic artery, splenic artery, left gastric artery, superior mesenteric artery, gastroduodenal artery, and right gastroepiploic artery using FBP, iDose~4 and IMR reconstruction algorithms were 12.201～15.838, 16.696～22.381 and 38.327～46.018, respectively. The CNR ranges were 9.549～13.186, 12.952～18.637 and 38.307～30.616, respectively. The SNR and CNR of the three reconstruction algorithms differed significantly. The SNR and CNR using IMR method were significantly higher than that of iDose~4 and FBP methods(P<0.001). Conclusion Under the same scanning conditions, the image quality of perigastric arteries using IMR is significantly better than that of iDose~4 and FBP.
Objective To investigate the effects of filtered back projection(FBP), hybrid iterative reconstruction(iDose~4) and iterative model reconstruction(IMR) on the quality of gastric vessel imaging after CT enhanced scanning. Methods A total of 21 patients with gastric cancer were prospectively enrolled. The CT images in arterial phase were reconstructed by FBP, iDose~4 and IMR methods, respectively. The CT values, signal-noise-ratio(SNR) and contrast-noise-ratio(CNR) of perigastric arteries(abdominal aorta, celiac trunk, common hepatic artery, splenic artery, left gastric artery, superior mesenteric artery, gastroduodenal artery, and right gastroepiploic artery) were measured. The differences of SNR and CNR in different perigastric arteries using FBP, iDose~4 and IMR methods were compared by paired t-test. Results The SNR ranges of abdominal aorta, celiac trunk, common hepatic artery, splenic artery, left gastric artery, superior mesenteric artery, gastroduodenal artery, and right gastroepiploic artery using FBP, iDose~4 and IMR reconstruction algorithms were 12.201～15.838, 16.696～22.381 and 38.327～46.018, respectively. The CNR ranges were 9.549～13.186, 12.952～18.637 and 38.307～30.616, respectively. The SNR and CNR of the three reconstruction algorithms differed significantly. The SNR and CNR using IMR method were significantly higher than that of iDose~4 and FBP methods(P<0.001). Conclusion Under the same scanning conditions, the image quality of perigastric arteries using IMR is significantly better than that of iDose~4 and FBP.
引文
[1]胡国权,郝建成,范元军,等.2 5 6层C T动态增强及后处理技术在胃癌术前TN分期的临床应用[J].皖南医学院学报,2017,36(4):378-381.
[2]Park SB,Kim YS,Lee JB,et al.Knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction(IMR)algorithm in ultralow-dose CTfor evaluation of urolithiasis:evaluation of radiation dose reduction,image quality,and diagnostic performance[J].Abdom Imaging,2015,40(8):3137-3146.
[3]Klink T,Obmann V,Heverhagen J,et al.Reducing CT radiation dose with iterative reconstruction algorithms:the influence of scan and reconstruction parameters on image quality and CTDIvol[J].Eur J Radiol,2014,83(9):1645-1654.
[4]Funama Y,Taguchi K,Utsunomiya D,et al.Image quality assessment of an iterative reconstruction algorithm applied to abdominal CT imaging[J].Phys Med,2014,30(4):527-534.
[5]严辉峰,张丽,张照涛,等.双源CT大螺距、低管电压扫描联合迭代重建技术在经导管主动脉瓣置换术术前评估中的应用价值[J].中华放射医学与防护杂志,2017,37(2):149-154.
[6]马义,朱斌.迭代模型重建技术对不同辐射剂量下头颈部CTA图像质量的影响[J].中华临床医师杂志(电子版),2016,10(15):2359-2363.
[7]Hou Y,Liu X,Xv S,et al.Comparisons of image quality and radiation dose between iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection reconstruction algorithms in 256-MDCT coronary angiography[J].AJR Am J Roentgenol,2012,199(3):588-594.
[8]Yuki H,Utsunomiya D,Funama Y,et al.Value of knowledgebased iterative model reconstruction in low-kV 256-slice coronary CT angiography[J].J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr,2014,8(2):115-123.
[9]Pan X,Sidky EY,Vannier M.Why do commercial CT scanners still employ traditional,filtered back-projection for image reconstruction?[J].Inverse Probl,2009,25(12):1230009.
[10]吴瑶媛,王万勤,刘斌,等.FBP、ASiR和VEO三种重建算法对常规剂量胸部CT图像质量的影响[J].中国医学影像技术,2012,28(3):575-578.
[11]钱伟亮,丰川,周丹静,等.FBP、iDose4和IMR重建算法对低剂量双下肢CTA图像质量的影响[J].中国医学影像技术,2017,33(2):290-294.
[12]高思喆,马跃,侯阳,等.全模型迭代重建算法(IMR)在“双低”冠状动脉CTA成像中的应用价值的探讨[J].中国临床医学影像杂志,2018,29(3):177-181.
[13]蒋耀军,高剑波,刘杰,等.低管电压迭代重建模型在冠状动脉CTA中的应用[J].中国医学影像技术,2016,32(11):1753-1756.
[14]蒋骏,黄美萍,雷益,等.全模型迭代重建技术在心脏CT成像中应用的实验研究[J].中华放射学杂志,2015,49(6):473-477.
[15]王君玲,许乙凯,周芳,等.全模型迭代重建技术在头颈部血管成像中的应用[J].科学技术与工程,2016,16(35):34-39.
[16]蔡武,胡春洪,王希明,等.“四低”联合自动管电流调节和全模型迭代重建技术在头颈部CT血管成像中的应用[J].中华医学杂志,2018,98(1):30-35.
[2]Park SB,Kim YS,Lee JB,et al.Knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction(IMR)algorithm in ultralow-dose CTfor evaluation of urolithiasis:evaluation of radiation dose reduction,image quality,and diagnostic performance[J].Abdom Imaging,2015,40(8):3137-3146.
[3]Klink T,Obmann V,Heverhagen J,et al.Reducing CT radiation dose with iterative reconstruction algorithms:the influence of scan and reconstruction parameters on image quality and CTDIvol[J].Eur J Radiol,2014,83(9):1645-1654.
[4]Funama Y,Taguchi K,Utsunomiya D,et al.Image quality assessment of an iterative reconstruction algorithm applied to abdominal CT imaging[J].Phys Med,2014,30(4):527-534.
[5]严辉峰,张丽,张照涛,等.双源CT大螺距、低管电压扫描联合迭代重建技术在经导管主动脉瓣置换术术前评估中的应用价值[J].中华放射医学与防护杂志,2017,37(2):149-154.
[6]马义,朱斌.迭代模型重建技术对不同辐射剂量下头颈部CTA图像质量的影响[J].中华临床医师杂志(电子版),2016,10(15):2359-2363.
[7]Hou Y,Liu X,Xv S,et al.Comparisons of image quality and radiation dose between iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection reconstruction algorithms in 256-MDCT coronary angiography[J].AJR Am J Roentgenol,2012,199(3):588-594.
[8]Yuki H,Utsunomiya D,Funama Y,et al.Value of knowledgebased iterative model reconstruction in low-kV 256-slice coronary CT angiography[J].J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr,2014,8(2):115-123.
[9]Pan X,Sidky EY,Vannier M.Why do commercial CT scanners still employ traditional,filtered back-projection for image reconstruction?[J].Inverse Probl,2009,25(12):1230009.
[10]吴瑶媛,王万勤,刘斌,等.FBP、ASiR和VEO三种重建算法对常规剂量胸部CT图像质量的影响[J].中国医学影像技术,2012,28(3):575-578.
[11]钱伟亮,丰川,周丹静,等.FBP、iDose4和IMR重建算法对低剂量双下肢CTA图像质量的影响[J].中国医学影像技术,2017,33(2):290-294.
[12]高思喆,马跃,侯阳,等.全模型迭代重建算法(IMR)在“双低”冠状动脉CTA成像中的应用价值的探讨[J].中国临床医学影像杂志,2018,29(3):177-181.
[13]蒋耀军,高剑波,刘杰,等.低管电压迭代重建模型在冠状动脉CTA中的应用[J].中国医学影像技术,2016,32(11):1753-1756.
[14]蒋骏,黄美萍,雷益,等.全模型迭代重建技术在心脏CT成像中应用的实验研究[J].中华放射学杂志,2015,49(6):473-477.
[15]王君玲,许乙凯,周芳,等.全模型迭代重建技术在头颈部血管成像中的应用[J].科学技术与工程,2016,16(35):34-39.
[16]蔡武,胡春洪,王希明,等.“四低”联合自动管电流调节和全模型迭代重建技术在头颈部CT血管成像中的应用[J].中华医学杂志,2018,98(1):30-35.