Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 5/2021

01-05-2021 | CT Angiography | Computed Tomography

CT iterative vs deep learning reconstruction: comparison of noise and sharpness

Authors: Chankue Park, Ki Seok Choo, Yunsub Jung, Hee Seok Jeong, Jae-Yeon Hwang, Mi Sook Yun

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 5/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To compare image noise and sharpness of vessels, liver, and muscle in lower extremity CT angiography between “adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V” (ASIR-V) and deep learning reconstruction “TrueFidelity” (TFI).

Methods

Thirty-seven patients (mean age, 65.2 years; 32 men) with lower extremity CT angiography were enrolled between November and December 2019. Images were reconstructed with two ASIR-V (blending factor of 80% and 100% (AV-100)) and three TFI (low-, medium-, and high-strength-level (TF-H) settings). Two radiologists evaluated these images for vessels (aorta, femoral artery, and popliteal artery), liver, and psoas muscle. For quantitative analyses, conventional indicators (CT number, image noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)) and blur metric values (indicating the degree of image sharpness) of selected regions of interest were determined. For qualitative analyses, the degrees of quantum mottle and blurring were assessed.

Results

The higher the blending factor in ASIR-V or the strength in TFI, the lower the noise, the higher the SNR and CNR values, and the higher the blur metric values in all structures. The SNR and CNR values of TF-H images were significantly higher than those of AV-80 images and similar to those of AV-100 images. The blur metric values in TFI images were significantly lower than those in ASIR-V images (p < 0.001), indicating increased sharpness. Among all the investigated image procedures, the overall qualitative image quality was best in TF-H images.

Conclusion

TF-H was the most balanced image in terms of image noise and sharpness among the examined image combinations.

Key Points

• Deep learning image reconstruction “TrueFidelity” is superior to iterative reconstruction “ASIR-V” regarding image noise and sharpness.
• The high-strength “TrueFidelity” approach generated the best image quality among the examined image reconstruction procedures.
• In iterative and deep learning CT image reconstruction, the higher the blending and strength factors, the lower the image noise and the poorer the image sharpness.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Pontana F, Pagniez J, Duhamel A et al (2013) Reduced-dose low-voltage chest CT angiography with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction versus standard-dose filtered back projection. Radiology 267:609–618CrossRef Pontana F, Pagniez J, Duhamel A et al (2013) Reduced-dose low-voltage chest CT angiography with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction versus standard-dose filtered back projection. Radiology 267:609–618CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Pontana F, Pagniez J, Flohr T et al (2011) Chest computed tomography using iterative reconstruction vs filtered back projection (part 1): evaluation of image noise reduction in 32 patients. Eur Radiol 21:627–635CrossRef Pontana F, Pagniez J, Flohr T et al (2011) Chest computed tomography using iterative reconstruction vs filtered back projection (part 1): evaluation of image noise reduction in 32 patients. Eur Radiol 21:627–635CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Ren Q, Dewan SK, Li M et al (2012) Comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques in brain CT. Eur J Radiol 81:2597–2601CrossRef Ren Q, Dewan SK, Li M et al (2012) Comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques in brain CT. Eur J Radiol 81:2597–2601CrossRef
4.
go back to reference 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 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
5.
go back to reference Willemink MJ, Noël PB (2019) The evolution of image reconstruction for CT—from filtered back projection to artificial intelligence. Eur Radiol 29:2185–2195CrossRef Willemink MJ, Noël PB (2019) The evolution of image reconstruction for CT—from filtered back projection to artificial intelligence. Eur Radiol 29:2185–2195CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Geyer LL, Schoepf UJ, Meinel FG et al (2015) State of the art: iterative CT reconstruction techniques. Radiology 276:339–357CrossRef Geyer LL, Schoepf UJ, Meinel FG et al (2015) State of the art: iterative CT reconstruction techniques. Radiology 276:339–357CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Padole A, Ali Khawaja RD, Kalra MK, Singh S et al (2015) CT radiation dose and iterative reconstruction techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:W384–W392CrossRef Padole A, Ali Khawaja RD, Kalra MK, Singh S et al (2015) CT radiation dose and iterative reconstruction techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:W384–W392CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Greffier J, Frandon J, Larbi A, Beregi J, Pereira F (2020) CT iterative reconstruction algorithms: a task-based image quality assessment. Eur Radiol 30:487–500CrossRef Greffier J, Frandon J, Larbi A, Beregi J, Pereira F (2020) CT iterative reconstruction algorithms: a task-based image quality assessment. Eur Radiol 30:487–500CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Ott JG, Becce F, Monnin P, Schmidt S, Bochud FO, Verdun FR (2014) Update on the non-prewhitening model observer in computed tomography for the assessment of the adaptive statistical and model-based iterative reconstruction algorithms. Phys Med Biol 59:4047 Ott JG, Becce F, Monnin P, Schmidt S, Bochud FO, Verdun FR (2014) Update on the non-prewhitening model observer in computed tomography for the assessment of the adaptive statistical and model-based iterative reconstruction algorithms. Phys Med Biol 59:4047
10.
go back to reference Samei E, Richard S (2015) Assessment of the dose reduction potential of a model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm using a task-based performance metrology. Med Phys 42:314–323CrossRef Samei E, Richard S (2015) Assessment of the dose reduction potential of a model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm using a task-based performance metrology. Med Phys 42:314–323CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Verdun F, Racine D, Ott J et al (2015) Image quality in CT: from physical measurements to model observers. Phys Med 31:823–843CrossRef Verdun F, Racine D, Ott J et al (2015) Image quality in CT: from physical measurements to model observers. Phys Med 31:823–843CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Lee NK, Kim S, Hong SB et al (2019) Low-dose CT with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction V technique in abdominal organ injury: comparison with routine-dose CT with filtered back projection. AJR Am J Roentgenol 213:659–666CrossRef Lee NK, Kim S, Hong SB et al (2019) Low-dose CT with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction V technique in abdominal organ injury: comparison with routine-dose CT with filtered back projection. AJR Am J Roentgenol 213:659–666CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Park C, Choo KS, Kim JH, Nam KJ, Lee JW, Kim JY (2019) Image quality and radiation dose in CT venography using model-based iterative reconstruction at 80 kVp versus adaptive statistical iterative Reconstruction-V at 70 kVp. Korean J Radiol 20:1167–1175CrossRef Park C, Choo KS, Kim JH, Nam KJ, Lee JW, Kim JY (2019) Image quality and radiation dose in CT venography using model-based iterative reconstruction at 80 kVp versus adaptive statistical iterative Reconstruction-V at 70 kVp. Korean J Radiol 20:1167–1175CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Akagi M, Nakamura Y, Higaki T et al (2019) Deep learning reconstruction improves image quality of abdominal ultra-high-resolution CT. Eur Radiol 29:6163–6171CrossRef Akagi M, Nakamura Y, Higaki T et al (2019) Deep learning reconstruction improves image quality of abdominal ultra-high-resolution CT. Eur Radiol 29:6163–6171CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Greffier J, Hamard A, Pereira F et al (2020) Image quality and dose reduction opportunity of deep learning image reconstruction algorithm for CT: a phantom study. Eur Radiol 30:3951–3959CrossRef Greffier J, Hamard A, Pereira F et al (2020) Image quality and dose reduction opportunity of deep learning image reconstruction algorithm for CT: a phantom study. Eur Radiol 30:3951–3959CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Jensen CT, Liu X, Tamm EP et al (2020) Image quality assessment of abdominal CT by use of new deep learning image reconstruction: initial experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 215:50–57CrossRef Jensen CT, Liu X, Tamm EP et al (2020) Image quality assessment of abdominal CT by use of new deep learning image reconstruction: initial experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 215:50–57CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Shin YJ, Chang W, Ye JC et al (2020) Low-dose abdominal CT using a deep learning-based denoising algorithm: a comparison with CT reconstructed with filtered back projection or iterative reconstruction algorithm. Korean J Radiol 21:356–364CrossRef Shin YJ, Chang W, Ye JC et al (2020) Low-dose abdominal CT using a deep learning-based denoising algorithm: a comparison with CT reconstructed with filtered back projection or iterative reconstruction algorithm. Korean J Radiol 21:356–364CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Singh R, Digumarthy SR, Muse VV et al (2020) Image quality and lesion detection on deep learning reconstruction and iterative reconstruction of submillisievert chest and abdominal CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 214:566–573CrossRef Singh R, Digumarthy SR, Muse VV et al (2020) Image quality and lesion detection on deep learning reconstruction and iterative reconstruction of submillisievert chest and abdominal CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 214:566–573CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Benz DC, Gräni C, Mikulicic F et al (2016) Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V: impact on image quality in ultralow-dose coronary computed tomography angiography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 40:958–963CrossRef Benz DC, Gräni C, Mikulicic F et al (2016) Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V: impact on image quality in ultralow-dose coronary computed tomography angiography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 40:958–963CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Ghetti C, Palleri F, Serreli G, Ortenzia O, Ruffini L (2013) Physical characterization of a new CT iterative reconstruction method operating in sinogram space. J Appl Clin Med Phys 14:263–271CrossRef Ghetti C, Palleri F, Serreli G, Ortenzia O, Ruffini L (2013) Physical characterization of a new CT iterative reconstruction method operating in sinogram space. J Appl Clin Med Phys 14:263–271CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Hsieh J, Liu E, Nett B, Tang J, Thibault JB, Sahney S (2019) A new era of image reconstruction: TrueFidelity™. Technical white paper on deep learning image reconstruction. GE Healthcare Hsieh J, Liu E, Nett B, Tang J, Thibault JB, Sahney S (2019) A new era of image reconstruction: TrueFidelity™. Technical white paper on deep learning image reconstruction. GE Healthcare
22.
go back to reference Goodenberger MH, Wagner-Bartak NA, Gupta S et al (2018) Computed tomography image quality evaluation of a new iterative reconstruction algorithm in the abdomen (adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction–V) a comparison with model-based iterative reconstruction, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and filtered back projection reconstructions. J Comput Assist Tomogr 42:184–190CrossRef Goodenberger MH, Wagner-Bartak NA, Gupta S et al (2018) Computed tomography image quality evaluation of a new iterative reconstruction algorithm in the abdomen (adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction–V) a comparison with model-based iterative reconstruction, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and filtered back projection reconstructions. J Comput Assist Tomogr 42:184–190CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Jensen CT, Wagner-Bartak NA, Vu LN et al (2019) Detection of colorectal hepatic metastases is superior at standard radiation dose CT versus reduced dose CT. Radiology 290:400–409CrossRef Jensen CT, Wagner-Bartak NA, Vu LN et al (2019) Detection of colorectal hepatic metastases is superior at standard radiation dose CT versus reduced dose CT. Radiology 290:400–409CrossRef
Metadata
Title
CT iterative vs deep learning reconstruction: comparison of noise and sharpness
Authors
Chankue Park
Ki Seok Choo
Yunsub Jung
Hee Seok Jeong
Jae-Yeon Hwang
Mi Sook Yun
Publication date
01-05-2021
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword
CT Angiography
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 5/2021
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07358-8

Other articles of this Issue 5/2021

European Radiology 5/2021 Go to the issue