Knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction (IMR) algorithm in ultralow-dose CT for evaluation of urolithiasis: evaluation of radiation dose reduction, image quality, and diagnostic performance

Verfasser / Beitragende:
[Sung Park, Yang Kim, Jong Lee, Hyun Park]
Ort, Verlag, Jahr:
2015
Enthalten in:
Abdominal Imaging, 40/8(2015-10-01), 3137-3146
Format:
Artikel (online)
ID: 605494460
LEADER caa a22 4500
001 605494460
003 CHVBK
005 20210128100526.0
007 cr unu---uuuuu
008 210128e20151001xx s 000 0 eng
024 7 0 |a 10.1007/s00261-015-0504-y  |2 doi 
035 |a (NATIONALLICENCE)springer-10.1007/s00261-015-0504-y 
245 0 0 |a Knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction (IMR) algorithm in ultralow-dose CT for evaluation of urolithiasis: evaluation of radiation dose reduction, image quality, and diagnostic performance  |h [Elektronische Daten]  |c [Sung Park, Yang Kim, Jong Lee, Hyun Park] 
520 3 |a Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of a knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction (IMR) algorithm for reducing image noise in ultralow-dose (ULD) CT for urolithiasis. Materials and methods: A total of 103 patients diagnosed withurinary stones (n=276) were enrolled. Regular dose (RD) scans (120kV and 150mAs, maximal tube current in dose modulation) were reconstructed using filtered back-projection (FBP, RD-FBP), and ULD scans (100kV and 20mAs, fixed tube current) were reconstructed with FBP (ULD-FBP), statistical iterative reconstruction (IR; ULD-iDose), and a knowledge-based IMR algorithm (ULD-IMR). Prospective interpretations of the two scans wereperformed with respect to radiation dose, objective image noise, and subjective assessment. The subjective assessment was also evaluated with regard to each patient's body mass index (BMI,<25 or≥25kg/m2). Using RD CT (RD-FBP) as the reference standard, two reviewers assessed the diagnostic performance and inter-observeragreement for ULD-IMR. Result: The average effective doses with RD CT and ULD CT were 8.31 and 0.68mSv,respectively, and the average radiation dose reduction rate was 91.82% (p<0.01). The lowest objective image noise was observed with ULD-IMR (p<0.01). Subjective assessment in ULD-IMR was comparable to that of RD-FBP, although RD-FBP remained statistically superior. For BMI, there was a statistically significant difference in subjective image quality between the normal (4.7±0.54) and overweight or obese groups (4.2±0.5) (p<0.05). The ULD-IMR showed a greater than 75% concordant rate in overall stones and 100% in ureter stones larger than 3mm. However, for stones<3mm, neither reviewer had a good detection rate (45.5% and 56.9% for the general and genitourinary radiologist, respectively). Inter-observer agreement was almost perfect (κ=0.82). Conclusion: Despite a significant radiation dose reduction, ULD-IMR images were comparable in image quality and noise to RD-FBP images. Furthermore, the diagnostic performance of the ULD non-enhanced CT protocol was comparable to that of the RD scan for diagnosing urinary stones larger than 3mm. 
540 |a Springer Science+Business Media New York, 2015 
690 7 |a Knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction  |2 nationallicence 
690 7 |a Model-based iterative reconstruction  |2 nationallicence 
690 7 |a Statistical iterative reconstruction  |2 nationallicence 
690 7 |a Urolithiasis  |2 nationallicence 
690 7 |a Low-dose computed tomography  |2 nationallicence 
700 1 |a Park  |D Sung  |u Department of Radiology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, 102, Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, 156-755, Seoul, Korea  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Kim  |D Yang  |u Department of Radiology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, 102, Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, 156-755, Seoul, Korea  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Lee  |D Jong  |u Department of Radiology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, 102, Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, 156-755, Seoul, Korea  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Park  |D Hyun  |u Department of Radiology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, 102, Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, 156-755, Seoul, Korea  |4 aut 
773 0 |t Abdominal Imaging  |d Springer US; http://www.springer-ny.com  |g 40/8(2015-10-01), 3137-3146  |x 0942-8925  |q 40:8<3137  |1 2015  |2 40  |o 261 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0504-y  |q text/html  |z Onlinezugriff via DOI 
898 |a BK010053  |b XK010053  |c XK010000 
900 7 |a Metadata rights reserved  |b Springer special CC-BY-NC licence  |2 nationallicence 
908 |D 1  |a research-article  |2 jats 
949 |B NATIONALLICENCE  |F NATIONALLICENCE  |b NL-springer 
950 |B NATIONALLICENCE  |P 856  |E 40  |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0504-y  |q text/html  |z Onlinezugriff via DOI 
950 |B NATIONALLICENCE  |P 700  |E 1-  |a Park  |D Sung  |u Department of Radiology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, 102, Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, 156-755, Seoul, Korea  |4 aut 
950 |B NATIONALLICENCE  |P 700  |E 1-  |a Kim  |D Yang  |u Department of Radiology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, 102, Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, 156-755, Seoul, Korea  |4 aut 
950 |B NATIONALLICENCE  |P 700  |E 1-  |a Lee  |D Jong  |u Department of Radiology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, 102, Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, 156-755, Seoul, Korea  |4 aut 
950 |B NATIONALLICENCE  |P 700  |E 1-  |a Park  |D Hyun  |u Department of Radiology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, 102, Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, 156-755, Seoul, Korea  |4 aut 
950 |B NATIONALLICENCE  |P 773  |E 0-  |t Abdominal Imaging  |d Springer US; http://www.springer-ny.com  |g 40/8(2015-10-01), 3137-3146  |x 0942-8925  |q 40:8<3137  |1 2015  |2 40  |o 261