Performance of Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction 3D Integrated With Automatic Tube Current Modulation in Radiation Dose and Image Noise Reduction Compared With Filtered-back Projection for 80-kVp Abdominal CT: Anthropomorphic Phantom and Patient Study

• Published in: European journal of radiology Vol. 85; no. 9; pp. 1666 - 1672
• Main Authors: Chen, Chien-Ming, MD, Lin, Yang-Yu, MD, Hsu, Ming-Yi, MD, Hung, Chien-Fu, MD, Liao, Ying-Lan, PhD, Tsai, Hui-Yu, PhD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Ireland Elsevier Ireland Ltd 01.09.2016
• Subjects: Aged; Algorithms; Body Mass Index; Female; Humans; Imaging; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Male; Middle Aged; Multidetector computed tomography; Observer variation; Phantoms; Phantoms, Imaging; Prospective Studies; Radiation Dosage; Radiographic image enhancement; Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods; Radiography, Abdominal - methods; Radiology; Radiometry; Reproducibility of Results; Signal-To-Noise Ratio; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods; ATCM; adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D; D eff; SSDE; DLP; iterative reconstruction; automatic tube current modulation; FBP; SNR; Phantoms; Imaging; effective diameter; size-specific dose estimate; Radiographic Image Enhancement; Multidetector Computed Tomography; dose length product; filtered-back projection; IR; Radiation Dosage; ROI; AIDR 3D; CTDI vol; region of interest; signal-to-noise ratio; CT volume dose index; Observer Variation; Deff; CTDIvol; Radiographic image enhancement; Observer variation; Radiation dosage; Multidetector computed tomography
• ISSN: 0720-048X; 1872-7727
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.07.002

Abstract Objectives Evaluate the performance of Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction 3D (AIDR 3D) and compare with filtered-back projection (FBP) regarding radiation dosage and image quality for an 80-kVp abdominal CT. Materials and Methods An abdominal phantom underwent four CT acquisitions and reconstruction algorithms (FBP; AIDR 3D mild, standard and strong). Sixty-three patients underwent unenhanced liver CT with FBP and standard level AIDR 3D. Further post-acquisition reconstruction with strong level AIDR 3D was made. Patients were divided into two groups (< and ≧29 cm) based on the abdominal effective diameter ( Deff ) at T12 level. Quantitative (attenuation, noise, and signal-to-noise ratio) and qualitative (image quality, noise, sharpness, and artifact) analysis by two readers were assessed and the interobserver agreement was calculated. Results Strong level AIDR 3D reduced radiation dose by 72% in the phantom and 47.1% in the patient study compared with FBP. There was no difference in mean attenuations. Image noise was the lowest and signal-to-noise ratio the highest using strong level AIDR 3D in both patient groups. For Deff < 29 cm, image sharpness of FBP was significantly different from those of AIDR 3D ( P < 0.05). For Deff ≧29 cm, image quality of AIDR 3D was significantly more favorable than FBP ( P < 0.05). Interobserver agreement was substantial. Conclusions Integrated AIDR 3D allows for an automatic reduction in radiation dose and maintenance of image quality compared with FBP. Using AIDR 3D reconstruction, patients with larger abdomen circumference could be imaged at 80 kVp.