Top

Pediatric Radiology

Published in:

01-03-2016 | Original Article

Knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction: comparative image quality and radiation dose with a pediatric computed tomography phantom

Authors: Young Jin Ryu, Young Hun Choi, Jung-Eun Cheon, Seongmin Ha, Woo Sun Kim, In-One Kim

Published in: Pediatric Radiology | Issue 3/2016

Abstract

Background

CT of pediatric phantoms can provide useful guidance to the optimization of knowledge-based iterative reconstruction CT.

Objective

To compare radiation dose and image quality of CT images obtained at different radiation doses reconstructed with knowledge-based iterative reconstruction, hybrid iterative reconstruction and filtered back-projection.

Materials and methods

We scanned a 5-year anthropomorphic phantom at seven levels of radiation. We then reconstructed CT data with knowledge-based iterative reconstruction (iterative model reconstruction [IMR] levels 1, 2 and 3; Philips Healthcare, Andover, MA), hybrid iterative reconstruction (iDose⁴, levels 3 and 7; Philips Healthcare, Andover, MA) and filtered back-projection. The noise, signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were calculated. We evaluated low-contrast resolutions and detectability by low-contrast targets and subjective and objective spatial resolutions by the line pairs and wire.

Results

With radiation at 100 peak kVp and 100 mAs (3.64 mSv), the relative doses ranged from 5% (0.19 mSv) to 150% (5.46 mSv). Lower noise and higher signal-to-noise, contrast-to-noise and objective spatial resolution were generally achieved in ascending order of filtered back-projection, iDose⁴ levels 3 and 7, and IMR levels 1, 2 and 3, at all radiation dose levels. Compared with filtered back-projection at 100% dose, similar noise levels were obtained on IMR level 2 images at 24% dose and iDose⁴ level 3 images at 50% dose, respectively. Regarding low-contrast resolution, low-contrast detectability and objective spatial resolution, IMR level 2 images at 24% dose showed comparable image quality with filtered back-projection at 100% dose. Subjective spatial resolution was not greatly affected by reconstruction algorithm.

Conclusion

Reduced-dose IMR obtained at 0.92 mSv (24%) showed similar image quality to routine-dose filtered back-projection obtained at 3.64 mSv (100%), and half-dose iDose⁴ obtained at 1.81 mSv.

Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography — an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284CrossRefPubMed

Schauer DA, Linton OW (2009) NCRP report No. 160, ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States, medical exposure — are we doing less with more, and is there a role for health physicists? Health Phys 97:1–5CrossRefPubMed

Brenner DJ (2010) Should we be concerned about the rapid increase in CT usage? Rev Environ Health 25:63–68CrossRefPubMed

Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E et al (2001) Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:289–296CrossRefPubMed

Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP et al (2012) Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 380:499–505PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z et al (2013) Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ 346:f2360PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Hara AK, Paden RG, Silva AC et al (2009) Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:764–771CrossRefPubMed

Singh S, Kalra MK, Shenoy-Bhangle AS et al (2012) Radiation dose reduction with hybrid iterative reconstruction for pediatric CT. Radiology 263:537–546CrossRefPubMed

Singh S, Kalra MK, Hsieh J et al (2010) Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 257:373–383CrossRefPubMed

10.

Willemink MJ, de Jong PA, Leiner T et al (2013) Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography part 1: technical principles. Eur Radiol 23:1623–1631CrossRefPubMed

11.

Katsura M, Matsuda I, Akahane M et al (2012) Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: comparison with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Eur Radiol 22:1613–1623CrossRefPubMed

12.

Singh S, Kalra MK, Do S et al (2012) Comparison of hybrid and pure iterative reconstruction techniques with conventional filtered back projection: dose reduction potential in the abdomen. J Comput Assist Tomogr 36:347–353CrossRefPubMed

13.

Hansen NJ, Kaza RK, Maturen KE et al (2014) Evaluation of low-dose CT angiography with model-based iterative reconstruction after endovascular aneurysm repair of a thoracic or abdominal aortic aneurysm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:648–655CrossRefPubMed

14.

Chang W, Lee JM, Lee K et al (2013) Assessment of a model-based, iterative reconstruction algorithm (MBIR) regarding image quality and dose reduction in liver computed tomography. Invest Radiol 48:598–606CrossRefPubMed

15.

Smith EA, Dillman JR, Goodsitt MM et al (2014) Model-based iterative reconstruction: effect on patient radiation dose and image quality in pediatric body CT. Radiology 270:526–534PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

16.

Patino M, Fuentes JM, Hayano K et al (2015) A quantitative comparison of noise reduction across five commercial (hybrid and model-based) iterative reconstruction techniques: an anthropomorphic phantom study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:W176–W183CrossRefPubMed

17.

Mehta D, Thompson R, Morton T et al (2013) Iterative model reconstruction: simultaneously lowered computed tomography radiation dose and improved image quality. Med Phys Int J 2:147–155

18.

Sucha D, Willemink MJ, de Jong PA et al (2014) The impact of a new model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm on prosthetic heart valve related artifacts at reduced radiation dose MDCT. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 30:785–793CrossRefPubMed

19.

Oda S, Utsunomiya D, Funama Y et al (2014) A knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction algorithm: can super-low-dose cardiac CT be applicable in clinical settings? Acad Radiol 21:104–110CrossRefPubMed

20.

Khawaja RDA, Singh S, Blake M et al (2015) 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 84:2–10CrossRefPubMed

21.

Kim H, Park CM, Song YS et al (2014) Influence of radiation dose and iterative reconstruction algorithms for measurement accuracy and reproducibility of pulmonary nodule volumetry: a phantom study. Eur J Radiol 83:848–857CrossRefPubMed

22.

Yuki H, Utsunomiya D, Funama Y et al (2014) Value of knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction in low-kV 256-slice coronary CT angiography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 8:115–123CrossRefPubMed

23.

Kaasalainen T, Palmu K, Lampinen A et al (2015) Limiting CT radiation dose in children with craniosynostosis: phantom study using model-based iterative reconstruction. Pediatr Radiol 45:1544–1553CrossRefPubMed

24.

Li K, Tang J, Chen G-H (2014) Statistical model based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) in clinical CT systems: experimental assessment of noise performance. Med Phys 41:041906PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

25.

Boone JM, Strauss KJ, Cody DD et al(2011) Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations (report 204). American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park

26.

Goske MJ, Strauss KJ, Coombs LP et al (2013) Diagnostic reference ranges for pediatric abdominal CT. Radiology 268:208–218CrossRefPubMed

27.

Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA (2010) Multisection CT protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology 257:158–166CrossRefPubMed

28.

Funama Y, Taguchi K, Utsunomiya D et al (2011) Combination of a low-tube-voltage technique with hybrid iterative reconstruction (iDose) algorithm at coronary computed tomographic angiography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 35:480–485PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

29.

Love A, Olsson ML, Siemund R et al (2013) Six iterative reconstruction algorithms in brain CT: a phantom study on image quality at different radiation dose levels. Br J Radiol 86:20130388PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

30.

Mayo-Smith WW, Gupta H, Ridlen MS et al (1999) Detecting hepatic lesions: the added utility of CT liver window settings. Radiology 210:601–604CrossRefPubMed

31.

Schindera ST, Odedra D, Raza SA et al (2013) Iterative reconstruction algorithm for CT: can radiation dose be decreased while low-contrast detectability is preserved? Radiology 269:511–518CrossRefPubMed

32.

Yoon JH, Lee JM, Yu MH et al (2014) Comparison of iterative model-based reconstruction versus conventional filtered back projection and hybrid iterative reconstruction techniques: lesion conspicuity and influence of body size in anthropomorphic liver phantoms. J Comput Assist Tomogr 38:859–868CrossRefPubMed

33.

Funama Y, Taguchi K, Utsunomiya D et al (2014) Image quality assessment of an iterative reconstruction algorithm applied to abdominal CT imaging. Phys Med 30:527–534CrossRefPubMed

34.

Gay F, Pavia Y, Pierrat N et al (2014) Dose reduction with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction for paediatric CT: phantom study and clinical experience on chest and abdomen CT. Eur Radiol 24:102–111CrossRefPubMed

35.

Husarik DB, Alkadhi H, Puippe GD et al (2015) Model-based iterative reconstruction for improvement of low-contrast detectability in liver CT at reduced radiation dose: ex-vivo experience. Clin Radiol 70:366–372CrossRefPubMed

36.

Vardhanabhuti V, Loader R, Roobottom CA (2013) Assessment of image quality on effects of varying tube voltage and automatic tube current modulation with hybrid and pure iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominal/pelvic CT: a phantom study. Invest Radiol 48:167–174CrossRefPubMed

37.

Yasaka K, Katsura M, Akahane M et al (2013) Model-based iterative reconstruction for reduction of radiation dose in abdominopelvic CT: comparison to adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. Springerplus 2:209PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Title: Knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction: comparative image quality and radiation dose with a pediatric computed tomography phantom
Authors: Young Jin Ryu
Young Hun Choi
Jung-Eun Cheon
Seongmin Ha
Woo Sun Kim
In-One Kim
Publication date: 01-03-2016
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Pediatric Radiology / Issue 3/2016
Print ISSN: 0301-0449
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1998
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-015-3486-6

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction: comparative image quality and radiation dose with a pediatric computed tomography phantom

Abstract

Background

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2016

MR cone-beam CT fusion image overlay for fluoroscopically guided percutaneous biopsies in pediatric patients

Development of bilateral coronary artery aneurysms in a child with Noonan syndrome

Appendiceal diameter: CT versus sonographic measurements

Infant bone age estimation based on fibular shaft length: model development and clinical validation

Pediatric Radiology Continuing Medical Education Activity

Diagnostic paediatric ultrasound (1st edn), by E. Beek and R. R. van Rijn (eds)