Back
 ACT  Vol.4 No.4 , December 2015
Comparison of CT Dose Reduction Algorithms in a Porcine Model
Abstract: The present study utilized a porcine model for qualitative and quantitative assessment of the diagnostic quality of non-contrast abdominal computed tomography (CT) images generated by Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction (ASIR, GE Healthcare, Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA), Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction (GE company name VEO), and conventional Filtered back projection (FBP) technique. Methods: Multiple CT whole-body scans of a freshly euthanized pig carcass were performed on a 64-slice GE CT scanner at varying noise indices (5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 37, 40, 45), and with three different algorithms (VEO, FBP, and ASIR at 30%, 50%, and 70% levels of ASIR-FBP blending). Abdominal CT images were reviewed and scored in a blinded and randomized manner by two board-certified abdominal radiologists. The task was to evaluate the clarity of the images according to a rubric involving edge sharpness, presence of artifact, anatomical clarity (assessed at four regions), and perceived diagnostic acceptability. This amounted to seven criteria, each of which was graded on a scale of 1 to 5. A weighted formula was used to calculate a composite score for each scan. Results: VEO outperforms ASIR and FBP by an average of 0.5 points per the scoring system used (p < 0.05). Above a threshold noise index of 30, diagnostic acceptability is lost by all algorithms, and there is no diagnostic advantage to increasing the dose beyond a noise index of 10. Between a noise index of 25 - 30, VEO retains diagnostic acceptability, as opposed to ASIR and FBP which lose acceptability above noise index of 25. Conclusion: Model-based iterative reconstruction provides superior image quality and anatomical clarity at reduced radiation dosages, supporting the routine use of this technology, particularly in pediatric abdominal CT scans.
Cite this paper: Nazir Khan, M. , Elbakri, I. , Henderson, B. , Mottola, J. and Omotayo, A. (2015) Comparison of CT Dose Reduction Algorithms in a Porcine Model. Advances in Computed Tomography, 4, 57-65. doi: 10.4236/act.2015.44008.
References

[1]   Brenner, D.J. and Hall, E.J. (2007) Computed Tomography—An Increasing Source of Radiation Exposure. The New England Journal of Medicine, 357, 2277-2284.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra072149

[2]   Pickhardt, P.J., Lubner, M.G., Kim, D.H., et al. (2012) Abdominal CT with Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction (MBIR): Initial Results of a Prospective Trial Comparing Ultralow-Dose with Standard-Dose Imaging. American Journal of Roentgenology, 199, 1266-1274.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9382

[3]   Khawaja, R.D.A., Singh, S., Otrakji, A., et al. (2014) Dose Reduction in Pediatric Abdominal CT: Use of Iterative Reconstruction Techniques across Different CT Platforms. Pediatric Radiology, 45, 1046-1055.

[4]   Mathieu, K.B., Ai, H., Fox, P.S., et al. (2014) Radiation Dose Reduction for CT Lung Cancer Screening Using ASIR and MBIR: A Phantom Study. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 15, 4515.

[5]   Rampinelli, C., Origgi, D., Vecchi, V., et al. (2015) Ultra-Low-Dose CT with Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction (MBIR): Detection of Ground-Glass Nodules in an Anthropomorphic Phantom Study. Radiologia Medica, 120, 611-617.

[6]   Nishizawa, M., Tanaka, H., Watanabe, Y., et al. (2014) Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction for Detection of Subtle Hypoattenuation in Early Cerebral Infarction: A Phantom Study. Japanese Journal of Radiology, 33, 26-32.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11604-014-0376-z

[7]   Hu, M.-Q., Li, M., Liu, Z.-Y., et al. (2015) Image Quality Evaluation of Iterative Model Reconstruction on Low Tube Voltage (80 kVp) Coronary CT Angiography in an Animal Study. Acta Radiologica, pii: 0284185114568909.

[8]   Gramer, B.M., Muenzel, D., Leber, V., et al. (2012) Impact of Iterative Reconstruction on CNR and SNR in Dynamic Myocardial Perfusion Imaging in an Animal Model. European Radiology, 22, 2654-2661.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2525-z

[9]   Caywood, D., Paxton, B., Boll, D., et al. (2014) Effects of Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction on Image Quality for Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Angiography of the Thoracic Aorta in a Swine Model. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, 39, 196-201.

[10]   (2000) European Guidelines for Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography. European Commission, Luxembourg.

[11]   Hwang, H.J., Seo, J.B., Lee, H.J., et al. (2013) Low-Dose Chest Computed Tomography with Sinogram-Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction, Iterative Reconstruction in Image Space, and Filtered Back Projection: Studies on Image Quality. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, 37, 610-617.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e31828f4dae

[12]   Lee, S.H., Kim, M.J., Yoon, C.S., et al. (2012) Radiation Dose Reduction with the Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction (ASIR) Technique for Chest CT in Children: An Intra-Individual Comparison. European Journal of Radiology, 81, e938-e943.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.06.013

[13]   Ren, Q., Dewan, S.K., Li, M., et al. (2012) Comparison of Adaptive Statistical Iterative and Filtered Back Projection Reconstruction Techniques in Brain CT. European Journal of Radiology, 81, 2597-2601.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.12.041

[14]   Vardhanabhuti, V., Ilyas, S., Gutteridge, C., et al. (2013) Comparison of Image Quality between Filtered Back-Projection and the Adaptive Statistical and Novel Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction Techniques in Abdominal CT for Renal Calculi. Insights Imaging, 4, 661-669.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13244-013-0273-5

[15]   Katsura, M., Sato, J., Akahane, M., et al. (2013) Comparison of Pure and Hybrid Iterative Reconstruction Techniques with Conventional Filtered Back Projection: Image Quality Assessment in the Cervicothoracic Region. European Journal of Radiology, 82, 356-360.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.11.004

[16]   Ichikawa, Y., Kitagawa, K., Nagasawa, N., et al. (2013) CT of the Chest with Model-Based, Fully Iterative Reconstruction: Comparison with Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction. BMC Medical Imaging, 13, 27.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2342-13-27

[17]   Mueck, F.G., Roesch, S., Scherr, M., et al. (2015) How Low Can We Go in Contrast-Enhanced CT Imaging of the Chest? A Dose-Finding Cadaver Study Using the Model-Based Iterative Image Reconstruction Approach. Academic Radiology, 22, 345-356.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2014.10.008

[18]   Yamada, Y., Jinzaki, M., Hosokawa, T., et al. (2012) Dose Reduction in Chest CT: Comparison of the Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction 3D, Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction, and Filtered Back Projection Reconstruction Techniques. European Journal of Radiology, 81, 4185-4195.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.07.013

[19]   May, M.S., Wüst, W., Brand, M., et al. (2011) Dose Reduction in Abdominal Computed Tomography. Investigative Radiology, 46, 465-470.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e31821690a1

[20]   Wang, R., Yu, W., Wu, R., et al. (2012) Improved Image Quality in Dual-Energy Abdominal CT: Comparison of Iterative Reconstruction in Image Space and Filtered Back Projection Reconstruction. American Journal of Roentgenology, 199, 402-406.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7159

[21]   Kamimura, K., Suda, T., Xu, W., et al. (2009) Image-Guided, Lobe-Specific Hydrodynamic Gene Delivery to Swine Liver. Molecular Therapy, 17, 491-499.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/mt.2008.294

[22]   Gravante, G., Ong, S.L., Metcalfe, M.S., et al. (2011) The Porcine Hepatic Arterial Supply, Its Variations and Their Influence on the Extracorporeal Perfusion of the Liver. Journal of Surgical Research, 168, 56-61.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2009.09.050

[23]   Martins, A.C. de A., Machado, M.A.C. and Ferraz, á.A.B. (2008) Porcine Liver: Experimental Model for the IntraHepatic Glissonian Approach. Acta Cirurgica Brasileira, 23, 204-207.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-86502008000200015

 
 
Top