Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Image Quality in Oncologic Chest Computerized Tomography With Iterative Reconstruction: A Phantom Study

Image Quality in Oncologic Chest Computerized Tomography With Iterative Reconstruction: A Phantom... Objective The purpose of this study was to validate iterative reconstruction technique in oncologic chest computed tomography (CT). Methods An anthropomorphic thorax phantom with 4 simulated tumors was scanned on a 64-slice CT scanner with 2 different iterative reconstruction techniques: one model based (MBIR) and one hybrid (ASiR). Dose levels of 14.9, 11.1, 6.7, and 0.6 mGy were used, and all images were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and both iterative reconstruction algorithms. Hounsfield units (HU) and absolute noise were measured in the tumors, lung, heart, diaphragm, and muscle. Contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) and signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) were calculated. Results Model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) increased CNRs of the tumors (21.1–192.2) and SNRs in the lung (−49.0–165.6) and heart (3.1–8.5) at all dose levels compared with FBP (CNR, 1.1–23.0; SNR, −7.5–31.6 and 0.2–1.1) and with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (CNR, 1.2–33.2; SNR, − 7.3–37.7 and 0.2–1.5). At the lowest dose level (0.6 mGy), MBIR reduced the cupping artifact (HU range: 17.0 HU compared with 31.4–32.2). An HU shift in the negative direction was seen with MBIR. Conclusions Quantitative image quality parameters in oncologic chest CT are improved with MBIR compared with FBP and simpler iterative reconstruction algorithms. Artifacts at low doses are reduced. A shift in HU values was shown; thus, absolute HU values should be used with care. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography Wolters Kluwer Health

Image Quality in Oncologic Chest Computerized Tomography With Iterative Reconstruction: A Phantom Study

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wolters-kluwer-health/image-quality-in-oncologic-chest-computerized-tomography-with-z9wz07CER1

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Wolters Kluwer Health
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Subject
Thoracic Imaging
ISSN
0363-8715
eISSN
1532-3145
DOI
10.1097/RCT.0000000000000364
pmid
27192499
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Objective The purpose of this study was to validate iterative reconstruction technique in oncologic chest computed tomography (CT). Methods An anthropomorphic thorax phantom with 4 simulated tumors was scanned on a 64-slice CT scanner with 2 different iterative reconstruction techniques: one model based (MBIR) and one hybrid (ASiR). Dose levels of 14.9, 11.1, 6.7, and 0.6 mGy were used, and all images were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and both iterative reconstruction algorithms. Hounsfield units (HU) and absolute noise were measured in the tumors, lung, heart, diaphragm, and muscle. Contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) and signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) were calculated. Results Model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) increased CNRs of the tumors (21.1–192.2) and SNRs in the lung (−49.0–165.6) and heart (3.1–8.5) at all dose levels compared with FBP (CNR, 1.1–23.0; SNR, −7.5–31.6 and 0.2–1.1) and with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (CNR, 1.2–33.2; SNR, − 7.3–37.7 and 0.2–1.5). At the lowest dose level (0.6 mGy), MBIR reduced the cupping artifact (HU range: 17.0 HU compared with 31.4–32.2). An HU shift in the negative direction was seen with MBIR. Conclusions Quantitative image quality parameters in oncologic chest CT are improved with MBIR compared with FBP and simpler iterative reconstruction algorithms. Artifacts at low doses are reduced. A shift in HU values was shown; thus, absolute HU values should be used with care.

Journal

Journal of Computer Assisted TomographyWolters Kluwer Health

Published: May 1, 2016

There are no references for this article.