Image quality in CT thorax: effect of altering reconstruction algorithm and tube load.

Non-linear properties of iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms can alter image texture. We evaluated the effect of a model-based IR algorithm (advanced modelled iterative reconstruction; ADMIRE) and dose on computed tomography thorax image quality. Dual-source scanner data were acquired at 20, 45 and 65 reference mAs in 20 patients. Images reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and ADMIRE Strengths 3-5 were assessed independently by six radiologists and analysed using an ordinal logistic regression model. For all image criteria studied, the effects of tube load 20 mAs and all ADMIRE strengths were significant (p < 0.001) when compared to reference categories 65 mAs and FBP. Increase in tube load from 45 to 65 mAs showed image quality improvement in three of six criteria. Replacing FBP with ADMIRE significantly improves perceived image quality for all criteria studied, potentially permitting a dose reduction of almost 70% without loss in image quality.

Assessment of image quality in abdominal computed tomography: Effect of model-based iterative reconstruction, multi-planar reconstruction and slice thickness on potential dose reduction.

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of tube load, model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) strength and slice thickness in abdominal CT using visual comparison of multi-planar reconstruction images. METHOD: Five image criteria were assessed independently by four radiologists on two data sets at 42- and 98-mAs tube loads for 25 patients examined on a 192-slice dual-source CT scanner. Effect of tube load, MBIR strength, slice thickness and potential dose reduction was estimated with Visual Grading Regression (VGR). Objective image quality was determined by measuring noise (SD), contrast-to-noise (CNR) ratio and noise-power spectra (NPS). RESULTS: Comparing 42- and 98-mAs tube loads, improved image quality was observed as a strong effect of log tube load regardless of MBIR strength (p < 0.001). Comparing strength 5 to 3, better image quality was obtained for two criteria (p < 0.01), but inferior for liver parenchyma and overall image quality. Image quality was significantly better for slice thicknesses of 2mm and 3mm compared to 1mm, with potential dose reductions between 24%-41%. As expected, with decrease in slice thickness and algorithm strength, the noise power and SD (HU-values) increased, while the CNR decreased. CONCLUSION: Increasing slice thickness from 1 mm to 2 mm or 3 mm allows for a possible dose reduction. MBIR strength 5 shows improved image quality for three out of five criteria for 1 mm slice thickness. Increasing MBIR strength from 3 to 5 has diverse effects on image quality. Our findings do not support a general recommendation to replace strength 3 by strength 5 in clinical abdominal CT protocols. However, strength 5 may be used in task-based protocols.

Image quality and pathology assessment in CT Urography: when is the low-dose series sufficient?

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to compare CT images from native, nephrographic and excretory phases using image quality criteria as well as the detection of positive pathological findings in CT Urography, to explore if the radiation burden to the younger group of patients or patients with negative outcomes can be reduced. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 40 patients who underwent a CT Urography examination on a 192-slice dual source scanner. Image quality was assessed for four specific renal image criteria from the European guidelines, together with pathological assessment in three categories: renal, other abdominal, and incidental findings without clinical significance. Each phase was assessed individually by three radiologists with varying experience using a graded scale. Certainty scores were derived based on the graded assessments. Statistical analysis was performed using visual grading regression (VGR). The limit for significance was set at p = 0.05. RESULTS: For visual reproduction of the renal parenchyma and renal arteries, the image quality was judged better for the nephrogram phase (p < 0.001), whereas renal pelvis/calyces and proximal ureters were better reproduced in the excretory phase compared to the native phase (p < 0.001). Similarly, significantly higher certainty scores were obtained in the nephrogram phase for renal parenchyma and renal arteries, but in the excretory phase for renal pelvis/calyxes and proximal ureters. Assessment of pathology in the three categories showed no statistically significant differences between the three phases. Certainty scores for assessment of pathology, however, showed a significantly higher certainty for renal pathology when comparing the native phase to nephrogram and excretory phase and a significantly higher score for nephrographic phase but only for incidental findings. CONCLUSION: Visualisation of renal anatomy was as expected with each post-contrast phase showing favourable scores compared to the native phase. No statistically significant differences in the assessment of pathology were found between the three phases. The low-dose CT (LDCT) seems to be sufficient in differentiating between normal and pathological examinations. To reduce the radiation burden in certain patient groups, the LDCT could be considered a suitable alternative as a first line imaging method. However, radiologists should be aware of its limitations.