Search

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare dual-energy CT (DECT) urography with a 50% reduced iodine dose to single-energy CT (SECT) urography with a standard iodine dose with respect to attenuation of renal vascular and urinary tract structures and with respect to image quality., Subjects and Methods: The study included 62 patients undergoing evaluation of urinary tract lithiasis, tumor, or hematuria. Thirty-one patients underwent DECT urography with a 50% reduced iodine dose and reconstruction at 50 and 77 keV. These subjects were sex, age, and size matched to a group of 31 patients who underwent 120-kVp SECT urography with a standard iodine dose. The mean iodine dose was 22 g for DECT and 44 g for SECT. Attenuation was measured at seven locations in the renal arteries, renal veins, and urinary tract. Two reviewers subjectively scored the image quality parameters image noise, sharpness of urinary tract contours, enhancement of urinary structures, and streak artifacts., Results: Mean DECT attenuation at 50 keV was the same as or greater than SECT attenuation at each of the seven locations. Measured image noise was highest at 50-keV DECT but was the same for 77-keV DECT and 120-kVp SECT. Mean subjective scores for DECT image quality parameters were the same as or higher than those of SECT, except for streak artifact and sharpness of urinary tract contours., Conclusion: DECT urography with a 50% reduced iodine dose may result in measured renal vascular and urinary tract attenuation the same as or higher than and image quality measurements and scores similar to those obtained with 120-kVp SECT urography with a standard iodine dose.

Purpose: This study aims to compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) planning on 16 cm wide-detector computed tomography (CT) to TAVR planning on 4 cm detector CT., Materials and Methods: A total of 36 patients who had TAVR planning axial CT on a wide-detector scanner (protocol 1) were compared to 36 patients who had helical 4 cm detector CT (protocol 2)., Results: Vascular attenuation was greater for protocol 1, but image noise, contrast-to-noise ratio, and signal-to-noise ratio were the same. Radiation dose was lower and iodine dose was less for protocol 1., Conclusion: Protocol 1 had greater vascular attenuation and similar image quality but lower radiation and less iodine compared to protocol 2., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To investigate whether reduced radiation dose liver computed tomography (CT) images reconstructed with model-based iterative reconstruction ( MBIR model-based iterative reconstruction ) might compromise depiction of clinically relevant findings or might have decreased image quality when compared with clinical standard radiation dose CT images reconstructed with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction ( ASIR adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction )., Materials and Methods: With institutional review board approval, informed consent, and HIPAA compliance, 50 patients (39 men, 11 women) were prospectively included who underwent liver CT. After a portal venous pass with ASIR adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction images, a 60% reduced radiation dose pass was added with MBIR model-based iterative reconstruction images. One reviewer scored ASIR adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction image quality and marked findings. Two additional independent reviewers noted whether marked findings were present on MBIR model-based iterative reconstruction images and assigned scores for relative conspicuity, spatial resolution, image noise, and image quality. Liver and aorta Hounsfield units and image noise were measured. Volume CT dose index and size-specific dose estimate ( SSDE size-specific dose estimate ) were recorded. Qualitative reviewer scores were summarized. Formal statistical inference for signal-to-noise ratio ( SNR signal-to-noise ratio ), contrast-to-noise ratio ( CNR contrast-to-noise ratio ), volume CT dose index, and SSDE size-specific dose estimate was made (paired t tests), with Bonferroni adjustment., Results: Two independent reviewers identified all 136 ASIR adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction image findings (n = 272) on MBIR model-based iterative reconstruction images, scoring them as equal or better for conspicuity, spatial resolution, and image noise in 94.1% (256 of 272), 96.7% (263 of 272), and 99.3% (270 of 272), respectively. In 50 image sets, two reviewers (n = 100) scored overall image quality as sufficient or good with MBIR model-based iterative reconstruction in 99% (99 of 100). Liver SNR signal-to-noise ratio was significantly greater for MBIR model-based iterative reconstruction (10.8 ± 2.5 [standard deviation] vs 7.7 ± 1.4, P < .001); there was no difference for CNR contrast-to-noise ratio (2.5 ± 1.4 vs 2.4 ± 1.4, P = .45). For ASIR adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and MBIR model-based iterative reconstruction , respectively, volume CT dose index was 15.2 mGy ± 7.6 versus 6.2 mGy ± 3.6; SSDE size-specific dose estimate was 16.4 mGy ± 6.6 versus 6.7 mGy ± 3.1 (P < .001)., Conclusion: Liver CT images reconstructed with MBIR model-based iterative reconstruction may allow up to 59% radiation dose reduction compared with the dose with ASIR adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction , without compromising depiction of findings or image quality., (© RSNA, 2014.)

Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare three CT image reconstruction algorithms for liver lesion detection and appearance, subjective lesion conspicuity, and measured noise., Materials and Methods: Thirty-six patients with known liver lesions were scanned with a routine clinical three-phase CT protocol using a weight-based noise index of 30 or 36. Image data from each phase were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR), and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR). Randomized images were presented to two independent blinded reviewers to detect and categorize the appearance of lesions and to score lesion conspicuity. Lesion size, lesion density (in Hounsfield units), adjacent liver density (in Hounsfield units), and image noise were measured. Two different unblinded truth readers established the number, appearance, and location of lesions., Results: Fifty-one focal lesions were detected by truth readers. For blinded reviewers compared with truth readers, there was no difference for lesion detection among the reconstruction algorithms. Lesion appearance was statistically the same among the three reconstructions. Although one reviewer scored lesions as being more conspicuous with MBIR, the other scored them the same. There was significantly less background noise in air with MBIR (mean [± SD], 2.1 ± 1.4 HU) than with ASIR (8.9 ± 1.9 HU; p < 0.001) or FBP (10.6 ± 2.6 HU; p < 0.001). Mean lesion contrast-to-noise ratio was statistically significantly higher for MBIR (34.4 ± 29.1) than for ASIR (6.5 ± 4.9; p < 0.001) or FBP (6.3 ± 6.0; p < 0.001)., Conclusion: In routine-dose clinical CT of the liver, MBIR resulted in comparable lesion detection, lesion characterization, and subjective lesion conspicuity, but significantly lower background noise and higher contrast-to-noise ratio compared with ASIR or FBP. This finding suggests that further investigation of the use of MBIR to enable dose reduction in liver CT is warranted.

Objectives: To compare routine dose liver CT reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) versus low dose images reconstructed with FBP and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR)., Methods: In this retrospective study, patients had a routine dose protocol reconstructed with FBP, and again within 17 months (median 6.1 months), had a low dose protocol reconstructed twice, with FBP and ASIR. These reconstructions were compared for noise, image quality, and radiation dose., Results: Nineteen patients were included. (12 male, mean age 58). Noise was significantly lower in low dose images reconstructed with ASIR compared to routine dose images reconstructed with FBP (liver: p < .05, aorta: p < 0.001). Low dose FBP images were scored significantly lower for subjective image quality than low dose ASIR (2.1 ± 0.5, 3.2 ± 0.8, p < 0.001). There was no difference in subjective image quality scores between routine dose FBP images and low dose ASIR images (3.6 ± 0.5, 3.2 ± 0.8, NS).Radiation dose was 41% less for the low dose protocol (4.4 ± 2.4 mSv versus 7.5 ± 5.5 mSv, p < 0.05)., Conclusions: Our initial results suggest low dose CT images reconstructed with ASIR may have lower measured noise, similar image quality, yet significantly less radiation dose compared with higher dose images reconstructed with FBP.