Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Physical and visual evaluations of CT image quality of large low-contrast objects with visual model-based iterative reconstruction technique: a phantom study

  • Scientific Paper
  • Published:
Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We aimed to verify whether the image quality of large low-contrast objects can be improved using visual model-based iterative reconstruction (VMR) while maintaining the visibility of conventional filtered back projection (FBP) and reducing radiation dose through physical and visual evaluation. A 64-row multi-slice CT system with SCENARIA View (FUJIFILM healthcare Corp. Tokyo, Japan) was used. The noise power spectrum (NPS), task-based transfer function (TTF), and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were physically evaluated. A low contrast object as a substitute for a liver mass was visually evaluated. In the noise measurement, STD1 showed an 18% lower noise compared to FBP. STR4 was able to reduce noise by 58% compared to FBP. The NPS of VMR was similar to those of FBP from low to high spatial frequency. The NPS of VMR reconstructions showed a similar variation with frequency as FBP reconstructions. STD1 showed the highest 10% TTF, and higher 10% TTF was observed with lower VMR level. The SNR of VMR was close to that of FBP, and higher SNR was observed with higher VMR level. In the results of the visual evaluation, there was no significant difference in visual evaluation between STD1 and FBP (p = 0.99) and between STD2 and FBP (p = 0.56). We found that the NPS of VMR images was similar to that of FBP images, and it can reduce noise and radiation dose by 25% and 50%, respectively, without decreasing the visual image quality compared to FBP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Geyer LL, Schoepf UJ, Meinel FG, Nance JW Jr, Bastarrika G, Leipsic JA, Paul NS, Rengo M, Laghi A, Cecco C (2015) N. D. state of the art: iterative CT reconstruction techniques. Radiology 276:339–357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Li K, Tang J (2014) Statistical model based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) in clinical CT systems: experimental assessment of noise performance. Med Phys 41(4):041906–041901

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Laurent G, Villani N, Hossu G, Rauch A, Noel A, Blum A, Teixeira P (2019) Full model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) in abdominal CT increases objective image quality, but decreases subjective acceptance. Eur Radiol 29:4016–4025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Laqmania A, Avanesova M, Butscheidta S, Kurfürst M, Sehner S, Schmidt-Holtz J, Derlin T, Behzadi C, Nagel HD, Adam G, Regier M (2016) Comparison of image quality and visibility of normal and abnormal findings at submillisievert chest CT using filtered back projection, iterative model reconstruction (IMR) and iDose4TM. Eur J Radiol 85:1971–1979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kokubun H, Sato M, Sadamaru H, Takahashi H, Takemoto K. Development of 64 row multi-slice CT SCENARIA View compatible with low dose and high image quality, MEDIX 68: 51–54

  6. Funama Y, Takahashi H, Goto T, Aoki Y, Yoshida R, Kumagai Y, Awai K (2020) Improving low-contrast detectability and noise texture pattern for computed tomography using iterative reconstruction accelerated with machine learning method: a phantom study. Acad Radiol 27:929–936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Liu L (2014) Model-based iterative reconstruction: a promising algorithm for today’s computed tomography imaging. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 45:131–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ichikawa K, CTmeasure Japanese society of CT technology, Kasumi, Minami-ku, Hiroshima, JPN, https://www.jsct-tech.org/, 2012–2014

  9. Ichikawa K, Hara T, Niwa S, Yamaguchi I, Ohashi K (2008) Calculation methods for noise power spectrum measurement in computed tomography. Med Imaging Inf Sci 25(2):29–34

    Google Scholar 

  10. Greffier J, Frandon J, Larbi A, Beregi JP, Pereira F (2020) CT iterative reconstruction algorithms: a task-based image quality assessment. Eur Radiol 30:487–500

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kawashima H, Ichikawa K, Matsubara K, Nagata H, Takata T, Kobayashi S (2019) Quality evaluation of image based iterative reconstruction for CT: comparison with hybrid iterative reconstruction. J Appl Clin Med Phys 20(6):199–205

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Hashimoto J, Abe S, Ishimori Y, Monma M, Tsumuraya A, Miyauchi K (2017) Proposal of a new index based on signal-to-noise ratio for low-contrast detectability in computed tomographic imaging. Nihon Houshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 73(7):537–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Harter HL (1961) Expected values of normal order statistics. Biomerika 48:151–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Andersena HK, Völgyesb D, Martinsen ACT (2018) Image quality with iterative reconstruction techniques in CT of the lungs a - phantom study. Eur J Radiol Open 5:35–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Solomon JB, Christianson O, Samei E (2012) Quantitative comparison of noise texture across CT scanners from different manufacturers. Med Phys 39:6048–6055

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mieville FA, Gudinchet F, Brunelle F, Bochud FO, Verdun FR (2013) Iterative reconstruction methods in two different MDCT scanners: physical metrics and 4-alternative forced-choice detectability experiments–A phantom approach. Phys Med 29:99–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fontarensky M, Alfidja A, Perignon R, Schoenig A, Perrier C, Mulliez A, Guy L, Boyer L (2015) Reduced radiation dose with model-based iterative reconstruction versus standard dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT for diagnosis of acute renal colic. Radiology 276:156–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tadokoro S Initial Clinical Experience of SCENARIA View Focusing on Next-Generation Iterative Progressive Reconstruction, MEDIX 69: 28–33

  19. Hamaguchi N, Fujima N, Hamaguchi A, Kodera S (2021) Improved depictions of the anterior choroidal artery and thalamoperforating arteries on 3D-CTA images using model-based iterative reconstruction. Acad Radiol 28:e14–e19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. González AB d, Mahesh M, Kim KP, Bhargavan M, Lewis R, Mettler F, Land C (2009) Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 169(22):2071–2077

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Afadzi M, Lysvik EK, Andersen HK, Martinsen ACT (2019) Ultra-low dose chest computed tomography: effect of iterative reconstruction levels on image quality. Eur J Radiol 114:62–68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pickhardt PJ, Lubner MG, Kim DH, Tang J, Ruma JA, Rio AM, Chen GH (2012) Abdominal CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging. AJR 199:1266–1274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There are no grant support with the CT scanner manufacturer in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiological Technology, Toyota Kosei Hospital, 500-1 Ibobara Josui, Toyota, Aichi, 470-0396, Japan

    Hideki Shibata & Isao Kozawa

  2. Department of Quantum Medical Technology, Division of Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kanazawa University, 5-11-80 Kodatsuno, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-0942, Japan

    Hideki Shibata

  3. Department of Quantum Medical Technology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Institute of Medical, Pharmaceutical and Health Sciences, Kanazawa University, 5-11-80 Kodatsuno, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-0942, Japan

    Kosuke Matsubara & Akihiro Takemura

  4. School of Health Sciences, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan

    Yasuki Asada

Authors
  1. Hideki Shibata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kosuke Matsubara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yasuki Asada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Akihiro Takemura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Isao Kozawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hideki Shibata.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

There are no conflicts of interest with the CT scanner manufacturer in this study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shibata, H., Matsubara, K., Asada, Y. et al. Physical and visual evaluations of CT image quality of large low-contrast objects with visual model-based iterative reconstruction technique: a phantom study. Phys Eng Sci Med 46, 141–150 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-022-01205-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-022-01205-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation