Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Assessment of image quality in abdominal computed tomography: Effect of model-based iterative reconstruction, multi-planar reconstruction and slice thickness on potential dose reduction
Linkoping Univ, Ctr Med Image Sci & Visualizat CMIV, Dept Radiol, Dept Med & Hlth Sci, S-58185 Linkoping, Sweden..
Linkoping Univ, Dept Med Phys, Dept Med & Hlth Sci, S-58185 Linkoping, Sweden..
KTH, School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health (CBH), Biomedical Engineering and Health Systems, Medical Imaging.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7750-1917
Linkoping Univ, Ctr Med Image Sci & Visualizat CMIV, Dept Radiol, Dept Med & Hlth Sci, S-58185 Linkoping, Sweden..
Show others and affiliations
2020 (English)In: European Journal of Radiology, ISSN 0720-048X, E-ISSN 1872-7727, Vol. 122, article id 108703Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Purpose: To determine the effect of tube load, model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) strength and slice thickness in abdominal CT using visual comparison of multi-planar reconstruction images. Method: Five image criteria were assessed independently by four radiologists on two data sets at 42- and 98-mAs tube loads for 25 patients examined on a 192-slice dual-source CT scanner. Effect of tube load, MBIR strength, slice thickness and potential dose reduction was estimated with Visual Grading Regression (VGR). Objective image quality was determined by measuring noise (SD), contrast-to-noise (CNR) ratio and noise-power spectra (NPS). Results: Comparing 42- and 98-mAs tube loads, improved image quality was observed as a strong effect of log tube load regardless of MBIR strength (p < 0.001). Comparing strength 5 to 3, better image quality was obtained for two criteria (p < 0.01), but inferior for liver parenchyma and overall image quality. Image quality was significantly better for slice thicknesses of 2mm and 3mm compared to 1mm, with potential dose reductions between 24%-41%. As expected, with decrease in slice thickness and algorithm strength, the noise power and SD (HU-values) increased, while the CNR decreased. Conclusion: Increasing slice thickness from 1 mm to 2 mm or 3 mm allows for a possible dose reduction. MBIR strength 5 shows improved image quality for three out of five criteria for 1 mm slice thickness. Increasing MBIR strength from 3 to 5 has diverse effects on image quality. Our findings do not support a general recommendation to replace strength 3 by strength 5 in clinical abdominal CT protocols. However, strength 5 may be used in task-based protocols.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier Ireland Ltd , 2020. Vol. 122, article id 108703
Keywords [en]
Computed tomography, Abdomen, Iterative reconstruction, Dose, Slice thickness, Multi-planar reconstruction (MPR)
National Category
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-266743DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108703ISI: 000505150900002PubMedID: 31810641Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85076199636OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-266743DiVA, id: diva2:1386301
Note

QC 20200117

Available from: 2020-01-17 Created: 2020-01-17 Last updated: 2020-01-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records BETA

Smedby, Örjan

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Smedby, Örjan
By organisation
Medical Imaging
In the same journal
European Journal of Radiology
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 41 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf