Abstract
Objectives
The purpose of this study was to evaluate lesion conspicuity achieved with five different iterative reconstruction techniques from four CT vendors at three different dose levels. Comparisons were made of iterative algorithm and filtered back projection (FBP) among and within systems.
Methods
An anthropomorphic liver phantom was examined with four CT systems, each from a different vendor. CTDIvol levels of 5 mGy, 10 mGy and 15 mGy were chosen. Images were reconstructed with FBP and the iterative algorithm on the system. Images were interpreted independently by four observers, and the areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) were calculated. Noise and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) were measured.
Results
One iterative algorithm increased AUC (0.79, 0.95, and 0.97) compared to FBP (0.70, 0.86, and 0.93) at all dose levels (p < 0.001 and p = 0.047). Another algorithm increased AUC from 0.78 with FBP to 0.84 (p = 0.007) at 5 mGy. Differences at 10 and 15 mGy were not significant (p-values: 0.084–0.883). Three algorithms showed no difference in AUC compared to FBP (p-values: 0.008–1.000). All of the algorithms decreased noise (10–71 %) and improved CNR.
Conclusions
Only two algorithms improved lesion detection, even though noise reduction was shown with all algorithms.
Key Points
• Iterative reconstruction algorithms affected lesion detection differently at different dose levels.
• One iterative algorithm improved lesion detectability compared to filtered back projection.
• Three algorithms did not significantly improve lesion detectability.
• One algorithm improved lesion detectability at the lowest dose level.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Thibault JB (2011) A model-based paradigm: A new frontier in image reconstruction. In: GE Healthcare CT publication GE Healthcare. http://www.gehealthcare.com/usen/ct/products/docs/CT_Clarity_062411_pg63-65.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2014
Scibelli A (2011) iDose4 iterative reconstruction technique. Healthcare, Philips
Grant K, Raupach R (2012) SAFIRE: Sinogram Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction. usa.healthcare.siemens.com
Irwan R, Nakanishi S, Blum A (2011) AIDR 3D - Reduces dose and simultaneously improves image quality. Toshiba Med Syst 1–8. www.toshiba-medical.eu/upload/TMSE_CT/White%20Papers/Toshiba_White%20paper%20CT_nov11.pdf. Accessed 14 Jul 2013
Miéville F, Gudinchet F, Brunelle F, Bochud F, Verdun F (2012) Iterative reconstruction methods in two different MDCT scanners: physical metrics and 4-alternative forced-choice detectability experiments - A phantom approach. Phys Med. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2011.12.004
Noël PB, Fingerle AA, Renger B, Münzel D, Rummeny EJ, Dobritz M (2011) Initial performance characterization of a clinical noise-suppressing reconstruction algorithm for MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:1404–1409
Moscariello A, Takx RAP, Schoepf J 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 21:2130–2138
Gervaise A, Osemont B, Lecocq S et al (2012) CT image quality improvement using adaptive iterative dose reduction with wide-volume acquisition on 320-detector CT. Eur Radiol 22:295–301
Prakash P, Kalra MK, Kambadakone AK et al (2010) Reducing abdominal CT radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Investig Radiol 45:202–210
Fleischmann D, Boas FE (2011) Computed tomography - old ideas and new technology. Eur Radiol 21:510–517
Sagara Y, Hara AK, Pavlicek W, Silva AC, Paden RG, Wu Q (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 195:713–719
Nelson RC, Feuerlein S, Boll DT (2011) New iterative reconstruction techniques for cardiovascular computed tomography: how do they work, and what are the advantages and disadvantages? J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 5:286–292
Nuyts J, De Man B, Fessler JA, Zbijewski W, Beekman FJ (2013) Modelling the physics in the iterative reconstruction for transmission computed tomography. Phys Med Biol 58:R63–R96
Beister M, Kolditz D, Kalender WA (2012) Iterative reconstruction methods in x-ray CT. Phys Med 28:94–108
Olerud HM, Skretting A (1999) An anthropomorphic phantom for receiver operating characteristic studies in CT imaging of liver lesions. Br J Radiol 72:35–43
Martinsen AC, Sæther HK, Hol PK, Olsen DR, Skaane P (2011) Iterative reconstruction reduces abdominal CT dose. Eur J Radiol 81:1483–1487
Authority NRP (2012) Reviderte og nye nasjonale referanseverdier for røntgendiagnostiske undersøkelser per 2012. StrålevernInfo 2–10
Silva AC, Lawder HJ, Hara A, Kujak J, Pavlicek W (2010) Innovations in CT dose reduction strategy: application of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:191–199
Mueck FG, Körner M, Scherr M et al (2012) Upgrade to iterative image reconstruction (IR) in abdominal MDCT imaging: a clinical study for detailed parameter optimization beyond vendor recommendations using the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction environment (ASIR) . Fortschr Röntgenstr 184:229–238
Leipsic J, Heilbron BG, Hague C (2011) Iterative reconstruction for coronary CT angiography: finding its way. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. doi:10.1007/s10554-011-9832-3
Baker ME, Dong F, Primak A et al (2012) Contrast-to-noise ratio and low-contrast object resolution on full- and low-dose MDCT: SAFIRE versus filtered back projection in an low-contrast object phantom and in the liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:8–18
GE Healthcare (2010) Veo - For Discovery CT750 HD. In: GE Healthcare, Manual
Wirth S, Mück F, Körner M et al (2011) B-856: Image quality and dose saving aspects of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) in 64-row abdominal CT imaging. European Congress of Radiology, ECR, Vienna
Singh S, Kalra MK, Hsieh J et al (2010) Abdominal CT: Comparison of Adaptive Statistical Iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 257:373–383
de Mey J (2011) Implementing ultra-low dose CT with Veo at University Hospital, Brussels. www.gehealthcare.com/CT, November 2011
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 14:263–271
Angel E (2012) AIDR 3D iterative reconstruction. Toshiba Med Syst 1–10. www.medical.toshiba.com/downloads/rxl-wp-aidr-3d-iterative-reconstruction. Accessed 14 Jul 2014
Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Statist 6:65–70
Metz CE (1978) Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 8:283–298
DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845
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. Invest Radiol 48(8):598–606
Yoon MA, Kim SH, Lee JM et al (2012) Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and Veo: assessment of image quality and diagnostic performance in CT colonography at various radiation doses. J Comput Assist Tomogr 36:596–601
Olsson ML, Norrgren K (2012) An investigation of the iterative reconstruction method iDose4 on a Philips CT Brilliance 64 using a Catphan 600 phantom. SPIE Proc
Fletcher JG, Grant K, Fidler JL et al (2012) Validation of dual-source single-tube reconstruction as a method to obtain half-dose images to evaluate radiation dose and noise reduction: Phantom and human assessment using CT colonography and sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) . J Comput Assist Tomogr 36:560–569
Ohno Y, Takenaka D, Kanda T et al (2012) Adaptive iterative dose reduction using 3D processing for reduced- and low-dose pulmonary CT: Comparison with standard-dose CT for image noise reduction and radiological findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:W477–W485
Pickhardt PJ, Lubner MG, Kim DH et al (2012) Abdominal CT with Model-Based Iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:1–9
Dobeli K, Lewis S, Meikle S, Thiele D, Brennan P (2013) Noise-reducing algorithms do not necessarily provide superior dose optimisation for hepatic lesion detection with multidetector CT. Br J Radiol. doi:10.1259/bjr.20120500
Schindera ST, Odedra D, Raza SA et al (2013) Iterative reconstruction algorithm for CT: Can radiation dose be decreased while low-contrast detectability is preserved? Radiology 269:511–518
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Erlend Andersen, Joanna Fenn Kristiansen, Wendy Garborg, and Rima Seputytë for help with phantom scanning, and thanks to Per Kristian Hol and Kristin Forså for image evaluation.
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Anne Catrine Martinsen. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. Kyrre Emblem kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript. Institutional Review Board approval was not required because this was a phantom study. Methodology: diagnostic or prognostic multicenter study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jensen, K., Martinsen, A.C.T., Tingberg, A. et al. Comparing five different iterative reconstruction algorithms for computed tomography in an ROC study. Eur Radiol 24, 2989–3002 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3333-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3333-4