Application of Vendor-Neutral Iterative Reconstruction Technique to Pediatric Abdominal Computed Tomography

• Published in: Korean journal of radiology Vol. 20; no. 9; pp. 1358 - 1367
• Main Authors: Lim, Woo Hyeon, Choi, Young Hun, Park, Ji Eun, Cho, Yeon Jin, Lee, Seunghyun, Cheon, Jung Eun, Kim, Woo Sun, Kim, In One, Kim, Jong Hyo
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Korea (South) The Korean Society of Radiology 01.09.2019; 대한영상의학회
• Subjects: Abdomen; Anthropomorphism; Noise; Pediatric Imaging; Pediatrics; Quality control; Radiation; Scanners; Software; Tomography; Work stations; 방사선과학; United States > US; Vendor-neutral; Phantom; Computed tomography; Iterative reconstruction; Pediatric; Abdomen
• ISSN: 1229-6929; 2005-8330
• DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2018.0715

To compare image qualities between vendor-neutral and vendor-specific hybrid iterative reconstruction (IR) techniques for abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) in young patients. In phantom study, we used an anthropomorphic pediatric phantom, age-equivalent to 5-year-old, and reconstructed CT data using traditional filtered back projection (FBP), vendor-specific and vendor-neutral IR techniques (ClariCT; ClariPI) in various radiation doses. Noise, low-contrast detectability and subjective spatial resolution were compared between FBP, vendor-specific (i.e., iDose1 to 5; Philips Healthcare), and vendor-neutral (i.e., ClariCT1 to 5) IR techniques in phantom. In 43 patients (median, 14 years; age range 1-19 years), noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and qualitative image quality scores of abdominopelvic CT were compared between FBP, iDose level 4 (iDose4), and ClariCT level 2 (ClariCT2), which showed most similar image quality to clinically used vendor-specific IR images (i.e., iDose4) in phantom study. Noise, CNR, and qualitative imaging scores were compared using one-way repeated measure analysis of variance. In phantom study, ClariCT2 showed noise level similar to iDose4 (14.68-7.66 Hounsfield unit [HU] vs. 14.78-6.99 HU at CT dose index volume range of 0.8-3.8 mGy). Subjective low-contrast detectability and spatial resolution were similar between ClariCT2 and iDose4. In clinical study, ClariCT2 was equivalent to iDose4 for noise (14.26-17.33 vs. 16.01-18.90) and CNR (3.55-5.24 vs. 3.20-4.60) ( > 0.05). For qualitative imaging scores, the overall image quality ([reader 1, reader 2]; 2.74 vs. 2.07, 3.02 vs. 2.28) and noise (2.88 vs. 2.23, 2.93 vs. 2.33) of ClariCT2 were superior to those of FBP ( < 0.05), and not different from those of iDose4 (2.74 vs. 2.72, 3.02 vs. 2.98; 2.88 vs. 2.77, 2.93 vs. 2.86) ( > 0.05). Vendor-neutral IR technique shows image quality similar to that of clinically used vendor-specific hybrid IR technique for abdominopelvic CT in young patients.