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
. 2020 Jan;30(1):487-500.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06359-6. Epub 2019 Jul 29.

CT iterative reconstruction algorithms: a task-based image quality assessment

Affiliations

CT iterative reconstruction algorithms: a task-based image quality assessment

J Greffier et al. Eur Radiol. 2020 Jan.

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the dose performance in terms of image quality of filtered back projection (FBP) and two generations of iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms developed by the most common CT vendors.

Materials and methods: We used four CT systems equipped with a hybrid/statistical IR (H/SIR) and a full/partial/advanced model-based IR (MBIR) algorithms. Acquisitions were performed on an ACR phantom at five dose levels. Raw data were reconstructed using a standard soft tissue kernel for FBP and one iterative level of the two IR algorithm generations. The noise power spectrum (NPS) and the task-based transfer function (TTF) were computed. A detectability index (d') was computed to model the detection task of a large mass in the liver (large feature; 120 HU and 25-mm diameter) and a small calcification (small feature; 500 HU and 1.5-mm diameter).

Results: With H/SIR, the highest values of d' for both features were found for Siemens, then for Canon and the lowest values for Philips and GE. For the large feature, potential dose reductions with MBIR compared with H/SIR were - 35% for GE, - 62% for Philips, and - 13% for Siemens; for the small feature, corresponding reductions were - 45%, - 78%, and - 14%, respectively. With the Canon system, a potential dose reduction of - 32% was observed only for the small feature with MBIR compared with the H/SIR algorithm. For the large feature, the dose increased by 100%.

Conclusion: This multivendor comparison of several versions of IR algorithms allowed to compare the different evolution within each vendor. The use of d' is highly adapted and robust for an optimization process.

Key points: • The performance of four CT systems was evaluated by using imQuest software to assess noise characteristic, spatial resolution, and lesion detection. • Two task functions were defined to model the detection task of a large mass in the liver and a small calcification. • The advantage of task-based image quality assessment for radiologists is that it does not include only complicated metrics, but also clinically meaningful image quality.

Keywords: Image enhancement; Image reconstruction; Multidetector computed tomography.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Katsura M, Matsuda I, Akahane M et al (2012) Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: comparison with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Eur Radiol 22:1613–1623 - DOI
    1. Larbi A, Orliac C, Frandon J et al (2018) Detection and characterization of focal liver lesions with ultra-low dose computed tomography in neoplastic patients. Diagn Interv Imaging 99:311–320 - DOI
    1. Macri F, Greffier J, Pereira F et al (2016) Value of ultra-low-dose chest CT with iterative reconstruction for selected emergency room patients with acute dyspnea. Eur J Radiol 85:1637–1644 - DOI
    1. 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. Eur J Radiol 81:4185–4195 - DOI
    1. Yan C, Xu J, Liang C et al (2018) Radiation dose reduction by using CT with iterative model reconstruction in patients with pulmonary invasive fungal infection. Radiology. 288:285–292 - DOI

MeSH terms