Application of deep-learning reconstruction algorithm for enhanced CT scan of upper abdomen under different radiation doses: focus on noise, contrast-to-noise ratio and image quality
Tóm tắt
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Fält T, Söderberg M, Hörberg L, et al. Simulated dose reduction for abdominal CT with filtered back projection technique: effect on liver lesion detection and characterization. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019;212(1):84–93. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.19441.
Sagara Y, Hara AK, Pavlicek W, et al. Abdominal CT: comparison of low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(3):713–9. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.2989.
Achille M, Luis S, Cynthia H, et al. State of the art in abdominal CT: the limits of iterative reconstruction algorithms. Radiology. 2019;293(3):491–503. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019191422.
Nelson RC, Feuerlein S, Boll DT. New iterative reconstruction techniques for cardiovascular computed tomography: how do they work, and what are the advantages and disadvantages? J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2011;5(5):286–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2011.07.001.
Cho YJ, Schoepf UJ, Silverman JR, et al. Iterative image reconstruction techniques: cardiothoracic computed tomography applications. J Thorac Imaging. 2014;29(4):198–208. https://doi.org/10.1097/RTI.0000000000000041.
Pooler BD, Lubner MG, Kim DH, et al. Prospective evaluation of reduced dose computed tomography for the detection of low-contrast liver lesions: direct comparison with concurrent standard dose imaging. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(5):2055–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4571-4.
Chang W, Lee JM, Lee K, et al. Assessment of a model-based, iterative reconstruction algorithm (MBIR) regarding image quality and dose reduction in liver computed tomography. Investig Radiol. 2013;48(8):598–606. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e3182899104.
Volders D, Bols A, Haspeslagh M, et al. Model-based iterative reconstruction and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominal CT: comparison of image quality in the detection of colorectal liver metastases. Radiology. 2013;269(2):469–74. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.13130002.
Fontarensky M, Alfidja A, Perignon R, et al. Reduced radiation dose with model-based iterative reconstruction versus standard dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT for diagnosis of acute renal colic. Radiology. 2015;276(1):156–66. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015141287.
Euler A, Stieltjes B, Szucs-Farkas Z, et al. Impact of model-based iterative reconstruction on low-contrast lesion detection and image quality in abdominal CT: a 12-reader-based comparative phantom study with filtered back projection at different tube voltages. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(12):5252–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4825-9.
Nishizawa M, Tanaka H, Watanabe Y, et al. Model-based iterative reconstruction for detection of subtle hypoattenuation in early cerebral infarction: a phantom study. Jpn J Radiol. 2015;33(1):26–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-014-0376-z.
Pickhardt PJ, Lubner MG, Kim DH, et al. Abdominal CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(6):1266–74. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9382.
Racine D, Ba AH, Ott JG, et al. Objective assessment of low contrast detectability in computed tomography with channelized hotelling observer. Phys Med. 2016;32(1):76–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.09.011.
Jensen CT, Wagner-Bartak NA, Vu LN, et al. Detection of colorectal hepatic metastases is superior at standard radiation dose CT versus reduced dose CT. Radiology. 2019;290(2):400–9. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018181657.
Ehman EC, Yu L, Manduca A, et al. Methods for clinical evaluation of noise reduction techniques in abdominopelvic CT. Radiographics. 2014;34(4):849–62. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.344135128.
Goodenberger MH, Wagner-Bartak NA, Gupta S, et al. Computed tomography image quality evaluation of a new iterative reconstruction algorithm in the abdomen (adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V) a comparison with model-based iterative reconstruction, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and filtered back projection reconstructions. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2018;42(2):184–90. https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0000000000000666.
Jensen CT, Telesmanich ME, Wagner-Bartak NA, et al. Evaluation of abdominal computed tomography image quality using a new version of vendor-specific model-based iterative reconstruction. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2017;41(1):67–74. https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0000000000000472.
Telesmanich ME, Jensen CT, Enriquez JL, et al. Third version of vendor-specific model-based iterativereconstruction (Veo 3.0): evaluation of CT image quality in the abdomen using new noise reduction presets and varied slice optimization. Br J Radiol. 2017;90(1077):20170188. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170188.
Shuman WP, Green DE, Busey JM, et al. Model-based iterative reconstruction versus adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection in liver 64-MDCT: focal lesion detection, lesion conspicuity, and image noise. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(5):1071–6. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.8986.
Yasaka K, Furuta T, Kubo T, et al. Full and hybrid iterative reconstruction to reduce artifacts in abdominal CT for patients scanned without arm elevation. Acta Radiol. 2017;58(9):1085–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185116684675.
Nakamoto A, Kim T, Hori M, et al. Clinical evaluation of image quality and radiation dose reduction in upper abdominal computed tomography using model-based iterative reconstruction; comparison with filtered back projection and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(9):1715–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.05.027.
Deák Z, Grimm JM, Treitl M, et al. Filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and a model-based iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT: an experimental clinical study. Radiology. 2013;266(1):197–206. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12112707.
Higaki T, Tatsugami F, Fujioka C, et al. Visualization of simulated small vessels on computed tomography using a model-based iterative reconstruction technique. Data Br. 2017;13:437–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.06.024.
GE Healthcare. Benefits of ASiR-V reconstruction for reducing patient radiation dose and preserving diagnostic quality in CT exams. 2014. https://www.gehealthcare.co.uk/-/media/. Accessed 14 Feb 2020.
Jensen CT, Liu X, Tamm EP, et al. Image quality assessment of abdominal CT by use of new deep learning image reconstruction: initial experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;215(1):50–7. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.19.22332.
Benz DC, Benetos G, Rampidis G, et al. Validation of deep-learning image reconstruction for coronary computed tomography angiography: Impact on noise, image quality and diagnostic accuracy. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2020;14(5):444–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2020.01.002.
Hardie AD, Nelson RM, Egbert R, et al. What is the preferred strength setting of the sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction algorithm in abdominal CT imaging? Radiol Phys Technol Jpn. 2015;8(1):60–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-014-0288-8.
GE Healthcare. A new era of image reconstruction: TrueFidelity—technical white paper on deep learning image reconstruction. 2019. https://www.gehealthcare.com/-/jssmedia/. Accessed 14 Feb 2020.
Likert R. A Technique for Measurement of Attitudes. Archive psychology of New York. 1932.
Hong MX, Zhao XM, Song JF, et al. Phantom study of the optimization of abdominal CT scanning parameters in 64-MSCT. Chin J Radiol. 2012;07:624–8 (Chinese).
Yoshioka K, Tanaka R, Takagi H, et al. Ultra-high-resolution CT angiography of the artery of Adamkiewicz: a feasibility study. Neuroradiology. 2018;60(1):109–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-017-1927-7.
Tamm EP, Rong XJ, Cody DD, et al. Quality initiatives: CT radiation dose reduction: how to implement change without sacrificing diagnostic quality. Radiographics. 2011;31(7):1823–32. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.317115027.