Assessment of sub-milli-sievert abdominal computed tomography with iterative reconstruction techniques of different vendors

Atul Padole; Nisha Sainani; Diego Lira; Ranish Deedar Ali Khawaja; Sarvenaz Pourjabbar; Roberto Lo Gullo; Alexi Otrakji; Mannudeep K Kalra

doi:10.4329/wjr.v8.i6.618

Assessment of sub-milli-sievert abdominal computed tomography with iterative reconstruction techniques of different vendors

World J Radiol. 2016 Jun 28;8(6):618-27. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v8.i6.618.

Authors

Atul Padole¹, Nisha Sainani¹, Diego Lira¹, Ranish Deedar Ali Khawaja¹, Sarvenaz Pourjabbar¹, Roberto Lo Gullo¹, Alexi Otrakji¹, Mannudeep K Kalra¹

Affiliation

¹ Atul Padole, Nisha Sainani, Diego Lira, Ranish Deedar Ali Khawaja, Sarvenaz Pourjabbar, Roberto Lo Gullo, Alexi Otrakji, Mannudeep K Kalra, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, United States.

Abstract

Aim: To assess diagnostic image quality of reduced dose (RD) abdominal computed tomography (CT) with 9 iterative reconstruction techniques (IRTs) from 4 different vendors to the standard of care (SD) CT.

Methods: In an Institutional Review Board approved study, 66 patients (mean age 60 ± 13 years, 44 men, and 22 women) undergoing routine abdomen CT on multi-detector CT (MDCT) scanners from vendors A, B, and C (≥ 64 row CT scanners) (22 patients each) gave written informed consent for acquisition of an additional RD CT series. Sinogram data of RD CT was reconstructed with two vendor-specific and a vendor-neutral IRTs (A-1, A-2, A-3; B-1, B-2, B-3; and C-1, C-2, C-3) and SD CT series with filtered back projection. Subjective image evaluation was performed by two radiologists for each SD and RD CT series blinded and independently. All RD CT series (198) were assessed first followed by SD CT series (66). Objective image noise was measured for SD and RD CT series. Data were analyzed by Wilcoxon signed rank, kappa, and analysis of variance tests.

Results: There were 13/50, 18/57 and 9/40 missed lesions (size 2-7 mm) on RD CT for vendor A, B, and C, respectively. Missed lesions includes liver cysts, kidney cysts and stone, gall stone, fatty liver, and pancreatitis. There were also 5, 4, and 4 pseudo lesions (size 2-3 mm) on RD CT for vendor A, B, and C, respectively. Lesions conspicuity was sufficient for clinical diagnostic performance for 6/24 (RD-A-1), 10/24 (RD-A-2), and 7/24 (RD-A-3) lesions for vendor A; 5/26 (RD-B-1), 6/26 (RD-B-2), and 7/26 (RD-B-3) lesions for vendor B; and 4/20 (RD-C-1) 6/20 (RD-C-2), and 10/20 (RD-C-3) lesions for vendor C (P = 0.9). Mean objective image noise in liver was significantly lower for RD A-1 compared to both RD A-2 and RD A-3 images (P < 0.001). Similarly, mean objective image noise lower for RD B-2 (compared to RD B-1, RD B-3) and RD C-3 (compared to RD C-1 and C-2) (P = 0.016).

Conclusion: Regardless of IRTs and MDCT vendors, abdominal CT acquired at mean CT dose index volume 1.3 mGy is not sufficient to retain clinical diagnostic performance.

Keywords: Abdomen; Adult; Computed tomographic imaging; Radiation dose.