Determination of a suitable low-dose abdominopelvic CT protocol using model-based iterative reconstruction through cadaveric study
Fiachra Moloney
Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorMaria Twomey
Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorDaniel Fama
Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorJoy Y Balta
Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorKarl James
Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Richard G Kavanagh
Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Correspondence
Dr Richard G Kavanagh, Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorNiamh Moore
Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorMary Jane Murphy
Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorSiobhan M O'Mahony
Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorMichael M Maher
Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
Alimentary Pharmabiotic Centre Microbiome Ireland, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorJohn F Cryan
Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Alimentary Pharmabiotic Centre Microbiome Ireland, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorOwen J O'Connor
Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
Alimentary Pharmabiotic Centre Microbiome Ireland, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorFiachra Moloney
Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorMaria Twomey
Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorDaniel Fama
Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorJoy Y Balta
Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorKarl James
Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Richard G Kavanagh
Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Correspondence
Dr Richard G Kavanagh, Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorNiamh Moore
Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorMary Jane Murphy
Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorSiobhan M O'Mahony
Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorMichael M Maher
Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
Alimentary Pharmabiotic Centre Microbiome Ireland, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorJohn F Cryan
Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Alimentary Pharmabiotic Centre Microbiome Ireland, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorOwen J O'Connor
Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
Alimentary Pharmabiotic Centre Microbiome Ireland, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Introduction
Cadaveric studies provide a means of safely assessing new technologies and optimizing scanning prior to clinical validation. Reducing radiation exposure in a clinical setting can entail incremental dose reductions to avoid missing important clinical findings. The use of cadavers allows assessment of the impact of more substantial dose reductions on image quality. Our aim was to identify a suitable low-dose abdominopelvic CT protocol for subsequent clinical validation.
Methods
Five human cadavers were scanned at one conventional dose and three low-dose settings. All scans were reconstructed using three different reconstruction algorithms: filtered back projection (FBP), hybrid iterative reconstruction (60% FBP and 40% adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR40)), and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR). Two readers rated the image quality both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Results
Model-based iterative reconstruction images had significantly better objective image noise and higher qualitative scores compared with both FBP and ASIR40 images at all dose levels. The greatest absolute noise reduction, between MBIR and FBP, of 34.3 HU (equating to a 68% reduction) was at the lowest dose level. MBIR reduced image noise and improved image quality even in CT images acquired with a mean radiation dose reduction of 62% compared with conventional dose studies reconstructed with ASIR40, with lower levels of objective image noise, superior diagnostic acceptability and contrast resolution, and comparable subjective image noise and streak artefact scores.
Conclusion
This cadaveric study demonstrates that MBIR reduces image noise and improves image quality in abdominopelvic CT images acquired with dose reductions of up to 62%.
References
- 1Wall BF. Ionising radiation exposure of the population of the United States: NCRP Report No. 160. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2009; 136: 136–8.
- 2Preston DL, Ron E, Tokuoka S et al. Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958–1998. Radiat Res 2007; 168: 1–64.
- 3Nakashima M, Kondo H, Miura S et al. Incidence of multiple primary cancers in Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors: association with radiation exposure. Cancer Sci 2008; 99: 87–92.
- 4Cardis E, Vrijheid M, Blettner M et al. Risk of cancer after low doses of ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study in 15 countries. BMJ 2005; 331: 77.
- 5Mettler FA Jr, Thomadsen BR, Bhargavan M et al. Medical radiation exposure in the U.S. in 2006: preliminary results. Health Phys 2008; 95: 502–7.
- 6Allen BC, Baker ME, Einstein DM et al. Effect of altering automatic exposure control settings and quality reference mAs on radiation dose, image quality, and diagnostic efficacy in MDCT enterography of active inflammatory Crohn's disease. AJR 2010; 195: 89–100.
- 7Ippolito D, Talei Franzesi C, Fior D, Bonaffini PA, Minutolo O, Sironi S. Low kV settings CT angiography (CTA) with low dose contrast medium volume protocol in the assessment of thoracic and abdominal aorta disease: a feasibility study. Brit J Radiol 1049; 2015: 20140140.
- 8Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Kamath RS, Halpern EF, Saini S. Radiation from “extra” images acquired with abdominal and/or pelvic CT: effect of automatic tube current modulation. Radiology 2004; 232: 409–14.
- 9Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL et al. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004; 230: 619–28.
- 10Boos J, Aissa J, Lanzman RS et al. CT angiography of the aorta using 80 kVp in combination with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction and automated tube current modulation: Effects on image quality and radiation dose. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2016; 60: 187–93.
- 11Veldhoen S, Laqmani A, Derlin T et al. 256-MDCT for evaluation of urolithiasis: iterative reconstruction allows for a significant reduction of the applied radiation dose while maintaining high subjective and objective image quality. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2014; 58: 283–90.
- 12Willemink MJ, Leiner T, de Jong PA et al. Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography part 2: initial results in dose reduction and image quality. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 1632–42.
- 13Singh S, Kalra MK, Do S et al. Comparison of hybrid and pure iterative reconstruction techniques with conventional filtered back projection: dose reduction potential in the abdomen. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2012; 36: 347–53.
- 14Katsura M, Sato J, Akahane M et al. Comparison of pure and hybrid iterative reconstruction techniques with conventional filtered back projection: image quality assessment in the cervicothoracic region. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82: 356–60.
- 15O'Neill SB, Mc Laughlin PD, Crush L et al. A prospective feasibility study of sub-millisievert abdominopelvic CT using iterative reconstruction in Crohn's disease. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 2503–12.
- 16Desai GS, Thabet A, Elias AY, Sahani DV. Comparative assessment of three image reconstruction techniques for image quality and radiation dose in patients undergoing abdominopelvic multidetector CT examinations. Brit J Radiol 1021; 2013: 20120161.
- 17Mitsumori LM, Shuman WP, Busey JM, Kolokythas O, Koprowicz KM. Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction versus filtered back projection in the same patient: 64 channel liver CT image quality and patient radiation dose. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 138–43.
- 18Mueck FG, Korner M, Scherr MK et al. Upgrade to iterative image reconstruction (IR) in abdominal MDCT imaging: a clinical study for detailed parameter optimization beyond vendor recommendations using the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction environment (ASIR). RoFo: Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin 2012; 184: 229–38.
- 19Deak 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: 197–206.
- 20Herin E, Gardavaud F, Chiaradia M et al. Use of Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction (MBIR) in reduced-dose CT for routine follow-up of patients with malignant lymphoma: dose savings, image quality and phantom study. Eur Radiol 2015; 25: 2362–70.
- 21Patino M, Fuentes JM, Hayano K, Kambadakone AR, Uyeda JW, Sahani DV. A quantitative comparison of noise reduction across five commercial (hybrid and model-based) iterative reconstruction techniques: an anthropomorphic phantom study. AJR 2015; 204: W176–83.
- 22Yamamura J, Tornquist K, Buchert R et al. Simulated low-dose computed tomography in oncological patients: a feasibility study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2010; 34: 302–8.
- 23Murphy KP, Crush L, Twomey M et al. Model-based iterative reconstruction in CT enterography. AJR 2015; 205: 1173–81.
- 24De Crop A, Smeets P, Van Hoof T et al. Correlation of clinical and physical-technical image quality in chest CT: a human cadaver study applied on iterative reconstruction. BMC Med Imaging 2015; 15: 32.
- 25Schramek GG, Stoevesandt D, Reising A, Kielstein JT, Hiss M, Kielstein H. Imaging in anatomy: a comparison of imaging techniques in embalmed human cadavers. BMC Med Educ 2013; 13: 143.
- 26Reed AB, Crafton C, Giglia JS, Hutto JD. Back to basics: use of fresh cadavers in vascular surgery training. Surgery 2009; 146: 757–62; discussion 62-3.
- 27Mueck FG, Roesch S, Scherr M et al. How low can we go in contrast-enhanced CT imaging of the chest?: A dose-finding cadaver study using the model-based iterative image reconstruction approach. Acad Radiol 2015; 22: 345–56.
- 28Boos J, Lanzman RS, Heusch P et al. Does body mass index outperform body weight as a surrogate parameter in the calculation of size-specific dose estimates in adult body CT? Brit J Radiol 1059 2016: 20150734.
10.1259/bjr.20150734 Google Scholar
- 29Marin D, Nelson RC, Schindera ST et al. Low-tube-voltage, high-tube-current multidetector abdominal CT: improved image quality and decreased radiation dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm–initial clinical experience. Radiology 2010; 254: 145–53.
- 30O'Connor OJ, Vandeleur M, McGarrigle AM et al. Development of low-dose protocols for thin-section CT assessment of cystic fibrosis in pediatric patients. Radiology 2010; 257: 820–9.
- 31Bongartz G, Golding S, Jurik A et al. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. EUR(Luxembourg) 1999; EUR 16262 EN: 46–57.
- 32Bongartz G, Golding S, Jurik A et al. CT quality criteria. European Commission. 2004.
- 33Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Kamath RS, Halpern EF, Saini S. Comparison of Z-axis automatic tube current modulation technique with fixed tube current CT scanning of abdomen and pelvis. Radiology 2004; 232: 347–53.
- 34Yu Z, Thibault JB, Bouman CA, Sauer KD, Hsieh J. Fast model-based X-ray CT reconstruction using spatially nonhomogeneous ICD optimization. IEEE Trans Image Process 2011; 20: 161–75.
- 35Vardhanabhuti V, Loader RJ, Mitchell GR, Riordan RD, Roobottom CA. Image quality assessment of standard- and low-dose chest CT using filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and novel model-based iterative reconstruction algorithms. AJR 2013; 200: 545–52.
- 36Katsura M, Matsuda I, Akahane M et al. Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: comparison with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 1613–23.
- 37Yanagawa M, Honda O, Yoshida S et al. Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique for pulmonary CT: image quality of the cadaveric lung on standard- and reduced-dose CT. Acad Radiol 2010; 17: 1259–66.
- 38Millon D, Vlassenbroek A, Van Maanen AG, Cambier SE, Coche EE. Low contrast detectability and spatial resolution with model-based Iterative reconstructions of MDCT images: a phantom and cadaveric study. Eur Radiol 2017; 27: 927–37.
- 39Tozakidou M, Reisinger C, Harder D et al. Systematic radiation dose reduction in cervical spine CT of human cadaveric specimens: How low can we go? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018; 39: 385–91.
- 40Lombard C, Gervaise A, Villani N et al. The Impact of dose reduction in quantitative kinematic CT of ankle joints using a full model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm: a cadaveric study. AJR 2018; 210: 396–403.
- 41Prakash P, Kalra MK, Digumarthy SR et al. Radiation dose reduction with chest computed tomography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique: initial experience. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2010; 34: 40–5.
Citing Literature
