Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Pediatric Radiology
Published in: Pediatric Radiology 2/2020

01-02-2020 | Computed Tomography | Original Article

Pediatric head computed tomography with advanced modeled iterative reconstruction: focus on image quality and reduction of radiation dose

Authors: Hyun-Hae Cho, So Mi Lee, Sun Kyoung You

Published in: Pediatric Radiology | Issue 2/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Iterative reconstruction has become the standard method for reconstructing computed tomography (CT) scans and needs to be verified for adaptation.

Objective

To assess the image quality after adapting advanced modeled iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE) for pediatric head CT.

Materials and methods

We included image sets with filtered back projection reconstruction (the cFBP group, n=105) and both filtered back projection and ADMIRE reconstruction (the lower-dose group, n=109) after dose reduction. All five strength levels of ADMIRE and filtered back projection were adapted for the lower-dose group and compared with the cFBP group. Quantitative parameters including noise, signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio and qualitative parameters including noise, white matter and gray matter differentiation of the supra- and infratentorial levels, sharpness, artifact, and diagnostic accuracy were also evaluated and compared with interobserver agreement.

Results

There was a mean dose reduction of 30.6% in CT dose index volume, 32.1% in dose length product, and 32.1% in effective dose after tube current reduction. There was gradual reduction of noise in air, cerebrospinal fluid and white matter with strength levels of ADMIRE from 1 to 5 (P<0.001). Signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio in all age groups increased among strength levels of ADMIRE, in sequence from 1 to 5, with statistical significance (P<0.001). Gradual reduction of qualitative parameters was noted among strength levels of ADMIRE in sequence from 1 to 5 (P<0.001).

Conclusion

Use of ADMIRE for pediatric head CT can reduce radiation dose without degrading image quality.
Literature
1.
McKnight CD, Watcharotone K, Ibrahim M et al (2014) Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: reducing dose while preserving image quality in the pediatric head CT examination. Pediatr Radiol 44:997–1003CrossRef
2.
Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284CrossRef
3.
Solomon J, Mileto A, Ramirez-Giraldo JC, Samei E (2015) Diagnostic performance of an advanced modeled iterative reconstruction algorithm for low-contrast detectability with a third-generation dual-source multidetector CT scanner: potential for radiation dose reduction in a multireader study. Radiology 275:735–745CrossRef
4.
Beister M, Kolditz D, Kalender WA (2012) Iterative reconstruction methods in X-ray CT. Phys Med 28:94–108CrossRef
5.
Ramirez-Giraldo J, Grant K, Schmidt B, Fuld MK (2014) Radiation dose optimization technologies in multidetector computed tomography: a review. Medical Physics 2:420–430
6.
The 2007 recommendations of the International 456 Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. 457 Ann ICRP 37:1–332
7.
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 257:158–166CrossRef
8.
Kilic K, Erbas G, Guryildirim M et al (2013) Quantitative and qualitative comparison of standard-dose and low-dose pediatric head computed tomography: a retrospective study assessing the effect of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. J Comput Assist Tomogr 37:377–381CrossRef
9.
Mullins ME, Lev MH, Bove P et al (2004) Comparison of image quality between conventional and low-dose nonenhanced head CT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 25:533–538PubMed
10.
Kilic K, Erbas G, Guryildirim M et al (2011) Lowering the dose in head CT using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 32:1578–1582CrossRef
11.
Korn A, Fenchel M, Bender B et al (2012) Iterative reconstruction in head CT: image quality of routine and low-dose protocols in comparison with standard filtered back-projection. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33:218–224CrossRef
12.
Rivers-Bowerman MD, Shankar JJ (2014) Iterative reconstruction for head CT: effects on radiation dose and image quality. Can J Neurol Sci 41:620–625CrossRef
13.
Ono S, Niwa T, Yanagimachi N et al (2016) Improved image quality of helical computed tomography of the head in children by iterative reconstruction. J Neuroradiol 43:31–36CrossRef
14.
Simon B, Letourneau P, Vitorino E, McCall J (2001) Pediatric minor head trauma: indications for computed tomographic scanning revisited. J Trauma 51:231–237CrossRef
15.
Rompel O, Glockler M, Janka R et al (2016) Third-generation dual-source 70-kVp chest CT angiography with advanced iterative reconstruction in young children: image quality and radiation dose reduction. Pediatr Radiol 46:462–472CrossRef
16.
Linet MS, Kim KP, Rajaraman P (2009) Children’s exposure to diagnostic medical radiation and cancer risk: epidemiologic and dosimetric considerations. Pediatr Radiol 39:S4–S26CrossRef
17.
Khawaja RD, Singh S, Otrakji A et al (2015) Dose reduction in pediatric abdominal CT: use of iterative reconstruction techniques across different CT platforms. Pediatr Radiol 45:1046–1055CrossRef
18.
Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Boylan J et al (2008) The ‘Image Gently’ campaign: increasing CT radiation dose awareness through a national education and awareness program. Pediatr Radiol 38:265–269CrossRef
19.
Geyer LL, Schoepf UJ, Meinel FG et al (2015) State of the art: iterative CT reconstruction techniques. Radiology 276:339–357CrossRef
20.
Chen B, Ramirez Giraldo JC, Solomon J, Samei E (2014) Evaluating iterative reconstruction performance in computed tomography. Med Phys 41:121913CrossRef
21.
Ho C, Oberle R, Wu I, Kim E (2014) Comparison of image quality in pediatric head computed tomography reconstructed using blended iterative reconstruction versus filtered back projection. Clin Imaging 38:231–235CrossRef
22.
Patino M, Fuentes JM, Singh S et al (2015) Iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominopelvic CT: technical concepts and clinical implementation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:W19–W31CrossRef
23.
Mirro AE, Brady SL, Kaufman RA (2016) Full dose-reduction potential of dtatistical iterative reconstruction for head CT protocols in a predominantly pediatric population. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 37:1199–1205CrossRef
24.
Schaller F, Sedlmair M, Raupach R et al (2016) Noise reduction in abdominal computed tomography applying iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE). Acad Radiol 23:1230–1238CrossRef
25.
Scholtz JE, Kaup M, Husers K et al (2016) Advanced modeled iterative reconstruction in low-tube-voltage contrast-enhanced neck CT: evaluation of objective and subjective image quality. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 37:143–150CrossRef
26.
Kim HG, Lee HJ, Lee SK et al (2017) Head CT: image quality improvement with ASIR-V using a reduced radiation dose protocol for children. Eur Radiol 27:3609–3617CrossRef
27.
Nam SB, Jeong DW, Choo KS et al (2017) Image quality of CT angiography in young children with congenital heart disease: a comparison between the sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) and advanced modelled iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE) algorithms. Clin Radiol 72:1060–1065CrossRef
28.
Sagara Y, Hara AK, Pavlicek W et al (2010) Abdominal CT: comparison of low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:713–719CrossRef
29.
Singh S, Kalra MK, Hsieh J et al (2010) Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 257:373–383CrossRef
30.
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. Investig Radiol 48:598–606CrossRef
31.
Qiu D, Seeram E (2016) Does iterative reconstruction improve image quality and reduce dose in computed tomography? Radiol Open J 1:42–54CrossRef
32.
Clinthorne NH, Pan TS, Chiao PC et al (1993) Preconditioning methods for improved convergence rates in iterative reconstructions. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 12:78–83CrossRef
33.
Dalehaug I, Bolstad KN, Aadnevik D et al (2017) ADMIRE vs. SAFIRE: Objective comparison of CT reconstruction algorithms and their noise properties. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1708.09616, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://​arxiv.​org/​abs/​1708.​09616
34.
Moscariello A, Takx RA, Schoepf UJ et al (2011) Coronary CT angiography: image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and potential for radiation dose reduction using a novel iterative image reconstruction technique-comparison with traditional filtered back projection. Eur Radiol 21:2130–2138CrossRef
35.
Gordic S, Desbiolles L, Stolzmann P et al (2014) Advanced modelled iterative reconstruction for abdominal CT: qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Clin Radiol 69:e497–e504CrossRef
36.
Vardhanabhuti V, Riordan RD, Mitchell GR et al (2014) 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 patients. Investig Radiol 49:209–216CrossRef
37.
Deak Z, Grimm JM, Treitl M et al (2013) Filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and a model-based iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT: an experimental clinical study. Radiology 266:197–206CrossRef
38.
Ellmann S, Kammerer F, Allmendinger T et al (2018) Advanced modeled iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE) facilitates radiation dose reduction in abdominal CT. Acad Radiol 25:1277–1284CrossRef
39.
Kaul D, Kahn J, Huizing L et al (2016) Dose reduction in paediatric cranial CT via iterative reconstruction: a clinical study in 78 patients. Clin Radiol 71:1168–1177CrossRef
40.
Vorona GA, Zuccoli G, Sutcavage T et al (2013) The use of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in pediatric head CT: a feasibility study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 34:205–211CrossRef
41.
Hwang JY, Do KH, Yang DH et al (2015) A survey of pediatric CT protocols and radiation doses in south Korean hospitals to optimize the radiation dose for pediatric CT scanning. Medicine (Baltimore) 94:e2146CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Pediatric head computed tomography with advanced modeled iterative reconstruction: focus on image quality and reduction of radiation dose
Authors
Hyun-Hae Cho
So Mi Lee
Sun Kyoung You
Publication date
01-02-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Pediatric Radiology / Issue 2/2020
Print ISSN: 0301-0449
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1998
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-019-04532-z

Other articles of this Issue 2/2020

Pediatric Radiology 2/2020 Go to the issue

Letter to the Editor

Regarding our 2018 paper titled ‘Magnetic resonance imaging of the pediatric mediastinum’: reply to Mirjalili et al.

PEDIATRIC RADIOLOGY CME ACTIVITY

Pediatric Radiology continuing medical education activity

Case Report

Imaging diagnosis of epipericardial fat necrosis in children

Original Article

Pediatric chest computed tomography at 100 kVp with tin filtration: comparison of image quality with 70-kVp imaging at comparable radiation dose

Original Article

Growth recovery lines: a specific indicator of child abuse and neglect?

Hermes

Hermes