Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Filtered Back Projection, Hybrid Iterative Reconstruction, Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction, and Virtual Monoenergetic Reconstruction Images at Both Low- and Standard-Dose Settings in Measurement of Emphysema Volume and Airway Wall Thickness: A CT Phantom Study

  • Kim, Cherry (Department of Radiology, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Ki Yeol (Department of Radiology, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine) ;
  • Shin, Chol (Department of Pulmonology, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kang, Eun-Young (Department of Radiology, Korea University Guro Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine) ;
  • Oh, Yu-Whan (Department of Radiology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine) ;
  • Ha, Moin (Department of Radiology, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine) ;
  • Ko, Chang Sub (Department of Radiology, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine) ;
  • Cha, Jaehyung (Department of Medical Science Research Center, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2017.08.15
  • Accepted : 2018.01.23
  • Published : 2018.08.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of emphysema volume (EV) and airway measurements (AMs) produced by various iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms and virtual monoenergetic images (VME) at both low- and standard-dose settings. Materials and Methods: Computed tomography (CT) images were obtained on phantom at both low- (30 mAs at 120 kVp) and standard-doses (100 mAs at 120 kVp). Each CT scan was reconstructed using filtered back projection, hybrid IR ($iDose^4$; Philips Healthcare), model-based IR (IMR-R1, IMR-ST1, IMR-SP1; Philips Healthcare), and VME at 70 keV (VME70). The EV of each air column and wall area percentage (WA%) of each airway tube were measured in all algorithms. Absolute percentage measurement errors of EV ($APE_{vol}$) and AM ($APE_{WA%}$) were then calculated. Results: Emphysema volume was most accurately measured in IMR-R1 ($APE_{vol}$ in low-dose, $0.053{\pm}0.002$; $APE_{vol}$ in standard-dose, $0.047{\pm}0.003$; all p < 0.001) and AM was the most accurate in IMR-SP1 on both low- and standard-doses CT ($APE_{WA%}$ in low-dose, $0.067{\pm}0.002$; $APE_{WA%}$ in standard-dose, $0.06{\pm}0.003$; all p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the $APE_{vol}$ of IMR-R1 between low- and standard-doses (all p > 0.05). VME70 showed a significantly higher $APE_{vol}$ than $iDose^4$, IMR-R1, and IMR-ST1 (all p < 0.004). VME70 also showed a significantly higher $APE_{WA%}$ compared with the other algorithms (all p < 0.001). Conclusion: IMR was the most accurate technique for measurement of both EV and airway wall thickness. However, VME70 did not show a significantly better accuracy compared with other algorithms.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), Dong-Kook Pharmaceutical, Reyon Pharmaceutical and Philips Company, Korea University

References

  1. Lynch DA, Al-Qaisi MA. Quantitative computed tomography in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Thorac Imaging 2013;28:284-290 https://doi.org/10.1097/RTI.0b013e318298733c
  2. Kim SS, Jin GY, Li YZ, Lee JE, Shin HS. CT Quantification of Lungs and Airways in Normal Korean Subjects. Korean J Radiol 2017;18:739-748 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.4.739
  3. Brooks RA, Di Chiro G. Theory of image reconstruction in computed tomography. Radiology 1975;117(3 Pt 1):561-572 https://doi.org/10.1148/117.3.561
  4. Baumueller S, Winklehner A, Karlo C, Goetti R, Flohr T, Russi EW, et al. Low-dose CT of the lung: potential value of iterative reconstructions. Eur Radiol 2012;22:2597-2606 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2524-0
  5. Yang WJ, Yan FH, Liu B, Pang LF, Hou L, Zhang H, et al. Can sinogram-affirmed iterative (SAFIRE) reconstruction improve imaging quality on low-dose lung CT screening compared with traditional filtered back projection (FBP) reconstruction? J Comput Assist Tomogr 2013;37:301-305 https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e31827b8c66
  6. Lim HJ, Chung MJ, Shin KE, Hwang HS, Lee KS. The impact of iterative reconstruction in low-dose computed tomography on the evaluation of diffuse interstitial lung disease. Korean J Radiol 2016;17:950-960 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.6.950
  7. Katsura M, Matsuda I, Akahane M, Sato J, Akai H, Yasaka K, 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;22:1613-1623 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2452-z
  8. Yuki H, Oda S, Utsunomiya D, Funama Y, Kidoh M, Namimoto T, et al. Clinical impact of model-based type iterative reconstruction with fast reconstruction time on image quality of low-dose screening chest CT. Acta Radiol 2016;57:295-302 https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185115575537
  9. Choo JY, Goo JM, Lee CH, Park CM, Park SJ, Shim MS. Quantitative analysis of emphysema and airway measurements according to iterative reconstruction algorithms: comparison of filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and model-based iterative reconstruction. Eur Radiol 2014;24:799-806 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3078-5
  10. Mets OM, Willemink MJ, de Kort FP, Mol CP, Leiner T, Oudkerk M, et al. The effect of iterative reconstruction on computed tomography assessment of emphysema, air trapping and airway dimensions. Eur Radiol 2012;22:2103-2109 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2489-z
  11. Nishio M, Matsumoto S, Ohno Y, Sugihara N, Inokawa H, Yoshikawa T, et al. Emphysema quantification by low-dose CT: potential impact of adaptive iterative dose reduction using 3D processing. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;199:595-601 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.8174
  12. Leng S, Yu L, Fletcher JG, McCollough CH. Maximizing iodine contrast-to-noise ratios in abdominal CT imaging through use of energy domain noise reduction and virtual monoenergetic dual-energy CT. Radiology 2015;276:562-570 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015140857
  13. Goo HW, Goo JM. Dual-energy CT: new horizon in medical imaging. Korean J Radiol 2017;18:555-569 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.4.555
  14. Kaup M, Scholtz JE, Engler A, Albrecht MH, Bauer RW, Kerl JM, et al. Dual-energy computed tomography virtual monoenergetic imaging of lung cancer: assessment of optimal energy levels. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2016;40:80-85 https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0000000000000319
  15. Frellesen C, Kaup M, Wichmann JL, Husers K, Scholtz JE, Albrecht MH, et al. Noise-optimized advanced image-based virtual monoenergetic imaging for improved visualization of lung cancer: comparison with traditional virtual monoenergetic imaging. Eur J Radiol 2016;85:665-672 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.12.022
  16. Gomez-Cardona D, Nagle SK, Li K, Robinson TE, Chen GH. Influence of radiation dose and reconstruction algorithm in MDCT assessment of airway wall thickness: a phantom study. Med Phys 2015;42:5919-5927 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4930797
  17. de Margerie-Mellon C, de Bazelaire C, Montlahuc C, Lambert J, Martineau A, Coulon P, et al. Reducing radiation dose at chest CT: comparison among model-based type iterative reconstruction, hybrid iterative reconstruction, and filtered back projection. Acad Radiol 2016;23:1246-1254 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2016.05.019
  18. Nakajo C, Heinzer S, Montandon S, Dunet V, Bize P, Feldman A, et al. Chest CT at a dose below 0.3 mSv: impact of iterative reconstruction on image quality and lung analysis. Acta Radiol 2016;57:311-317 https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185115578469
  19. Blechschmidt RA, Werthschutzky R, Lorcher U. Automated CT image evaluation of the lung: a morphology-based concept. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2001;20:434-442 https://doi.org/10.1109/42.925296
  20. Mishima M, Hirai T, Itoh H, Nakano Y, Sakai H, Muro S, et al. Complexity of terminal airspace geometry assessed by lung computed tomography in normal subjects and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999;96:8829-8834 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.16.8829
  21. Madani A, Van Muylem A, de Maertelaer V, Zanen J, Gevenois PA. Pulmonary emphysema: size distribution of emphysematous spaces on multidetector CT images--comparison with macroscopic and microscopic morphometry. Radiology 2008;248:1036-1041 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2483071434

Cited by

  1. Evaluation of the depiction ability of the microanatomy of the temporal bone in quarter-detector CT : Model-based iterative reconstruction vs hybrid iterative reconstruction vol.98, pp.24, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000015991
  2. Accuracy of Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction for CT Volumetry of Part-Solid Nodules and Solid Nodules in Comparison with Filtered Back Projection and Hybrid Iterative Reconstruction at Various Dos vol.20, pp.7, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.0893
  3. Factors Affecting Radiation Dose in Computed Tomography Angiograms for Pulmonary Embolism: A Retrospective Cohort Study vol.10, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.25259/jcis_168_2020
  4. Characteristics of Recent Articles Published in the Korean Journal of Radiology Based on the Citation Frequency vol.21, pp.12, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2020.1322
  5. Extraction of Coronary Atherosclerotic Plaques From Computed Tomography Imaging: A Review of Recent Methods vol.8, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.597568
  6. Image Quality Assessment of Low-Dose CT using Hybrid Iterative Reconstruction vol.65, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.2352/j.imagingsci.technol.2021.65.6.060501