Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Sep;195(3):713-9.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.2989.

Abdominal CT: comparison of low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Abdominal CT: comparison of low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients

Yoshiko Sagara et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Sep.

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this article is to retrospectively compare radiation dose, noise, and image quality of abdominal low-dose CT reconstructed with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) and routine-dose CT reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP).

Materials and methods: Fifty-three patients (37 men and 16 women; mean age, 60.8 years) underwent contrast-enhanced abdominal low-dose CT with 40% ASIR. All 53 patients had previously undergone contrast-enhanced routine-dose CT with FBP. With the scanning techniques masked, two radiologists independently graded images for sharpness, image noise, diagnostic acceptability, and artifacts. Quantitative measures of radiation dose and image noise were also obtained. All results were compared on the basis of body mass index (BMI).

Results: The volume CT dose index (CTDI(vol)), dose-length product, and radiation dose for low-dose CT with ASIR were 17 mGy, 860 mGy, and 13 mSv, respectively, compared with 25 mGy, 1,193 mGy, and 18 mSv for routine-dose CT with FBP, representing an approximate overall dose reduction of 33%. Low-dose CT with ASIR had significantly reduced (p < 0.001) quantitative and qualitative assessment of image noise. Image sharpness, however, was significantly reduced for low-dose CT with ASIR (p < 0.001), although diagnostic acceptability and artifact scores were nearly identical to those for routine-dose CT with FBP. The average CTDI(vol) dose reduction was 66% for patients with a BMI of less than 20 and 23% for patients with a BMI of 25 or greater.

Conclusion: Compared with routine-dose CT with FBP, abdominal low-dose CT with ASIR significantly reduces noise, thereby permitting diagnostic abdominal examinations with lower (by 23-66%) radiation doses. Despite reduced image sharpness in average and small patients, low-dose CT with ASIR had diagnostic acceptability comparable to that of routine-dose CT with FBP.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types