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 Dose Settings: An Anthropomorphic Chest Phantom Study

Seung Kwan Kim, Cherry Kim, Ki Yeol Lee, Jaehyung Cha, Hyun Ju Lim, Eun-Young Kang, Yu Whan Oh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the accuracy of model-based iterative reconstruction (MIR) for volume measurement of part-solid nodules (PSNs) and solid nodules (SNs) in comparison with filtered back projection (FBP) or hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) at various radiation dose settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT scanning was performed for eight different diameters of PSNs and SNs placed in the phantom at five radiation dose levels (120 kVp/100 mAs, 120 kVp/50 mAs, 120 kVp/20 mAs, 120 kVp/10 mAs, and 80 kVp/10 mAs). Each CT scan was reconstructed using FBP, HIR, or MIR with three different image definitions (body routine level 1 [IMR-R1], body soft tissue level 1 [IMR-ST1], and sharp plus level 1 [IMR-SP1]; Philips Healthcare). The SN and PSN volumes including each solid/ground-glass opacity portion were measured semi-automatically, after which absolute percentage measurement errors (APEs) of the measured volumes were calculated. Image noise was calculated to assess the image quality. RESULTS: Across all nodules and dose settings, the APEs were significantly lower in MIR than in FBP and HIR (all p < 0.01). The APEs of the smallest inner solid portion of the PSNs (3 mm) and SNs (3 mm) were the lowest when MIR (IMR-R1 and IMR-ST1) was used for reconstruction for all radiation dose settings. (IMR-R1 and IMR-ST1 at 120 kVp/100 mAs, 1.06 ± 1.36 and 8.75 ± 3.96, p < 0.001; at 120 kVp/50 mAs, 1.95 ± 1.56 and 5.61 ± 0.85, p = 0.002; at 120 kVp/20 mAs, 2.88 ± 3.68 and 5.75 ± 1.95, p = 0.001; at 120 kVp/10 mAs, 5.57 ± 6.26 and 6.32 ± 2.91, p = 0.091; at 80 kVp/10 mAs, 5.84 ± 1.96 and 6.90 ± 3.31, p = 0.632). Image noise was significantly lower in MIR than in FBP and HIR for all radiation dose settings (120 kVp/100 mAs, 3.22 ± 0.66; 120 kVp/50 mAs, 4.19 ± 1.37; 120 kVp/20 mAs, 5.49 ± 1.16; 120 kVp/10 mAs, 6.88 ± 1.91; 80 kVp/10 mAs, 12.49 ± 6.14; all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: MIR was the most accurate algorithm for volume measurements of both PSNs and SNs in comparison with FBP and HIR at low-dose as well as standard-dose settings. Specifically, MIR was effective in the volume measurement of the smallest PSNs and SNs.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1195-1206
Number of pages12
JournalKorean journal of radiology
Volume20
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019 Jul 1

Fingerprint

Thorax
Radiation
Body Image
Glass
Delivery of Health Care

Keywords

  • Lung neoplasm
  • Multidetector computed tomography
  • Phantoms, imaging
  • Radiation dosage

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

@article{c3b5ed1768d44ac5a4d2457a8058c27a,
title = "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 Dose Settings: An Anthropomorphic Chest Phantom Study",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To investigate the accuracy of model-based iterative reconstruction (MIR) for volume measurement of part-solid nodules (PSNs) and solid nodules (SNs) in comparison with filtered back projection (FBP) or hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) at various radiation dose settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT scanning was performed for eight different diameters of PSNs and SNs placed in the phantom at five radiation dose levels (120 kVp/100 mAs, 120 kVp/50 mAs, 120 kVp/20 mAs, 120 kVp/10 mAs, and 80 kVp/10 mAs). Each CT scan was reconstructed using FBP, HIR, or MIR with three different image definitions (body routine level 1 [IMR-R1], body soft tissue level 1 [IMR-ST1], and sharp plus level 1 [IMR-SP1]; Philips Healthcare). The SN and PSN volumes including each solid/ground-glass opacity portion were measured semi-automatically, after which absolute percentage measurement errors (APEs) of the measured volumes were calculated. Image noise was calculated to assess the image quality. RESULTS: Across all nodules and dose settings, the APEs were significantly lower in MIR than in FBP and HIR (all p < 0.01). The APEs of the smallest inner solid portion of the PSNs (3 mm) and SNs (3 mm) were the lowest when MIR (IMR-R1 and IMR-ST1) was used for reconstruction for all radiation dose settings. (IMR-R1 and IMR-ST1 at 120 kVp/100 mAs, 1.06 ± 1.36 and 8.75 ± 3.96, p < 0.001; at 120 kVp/50 mAs, 1.95 ± 1.56 and 5.61 ± 0.85, p = 0.002; at 120 kVp/20 mAs, 2.88 ± 3.68 and 5.75 ± 1.95, p = 0.001; at 120 kVp/10 mAs, 5.57 ± 6.26 and 6.32 ± 2.91, p = 0.091; at 80 kVp/10 mAs, 5.84 ± 1.96 and 6.90 ± 3.31, p = 0.632). Image noise was significantly lower in MIR than in FBP and HIR for all radiation dose settings (120 kVp/100 mAs, 3.22 ± 0.66; 120 kVp/50 mAs, 4.19 ± 1.37; 120 kVp/20 mAs, 5.49 ± 1.16; 120 kVp/10 mAs, 6.88 ± 1.91; 80 kVp/10 mAs, 12.49 ± 6.14; all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: MIR was the most accurate algorithm for volume measurements of both PSNs and SNs in comparison with FBP and HIR at low-dose as well as standard-dose settings. Specifically, MIR was effective in the volume measurement of the smallest PSNs and SNs.",
keywords = "Lung neoplasm, Multidetector computed tomography, Phantoms, imaging, Radiation dosage",
author = "Kim, {Seung Kwan} and Cherry Kim and Lee, {Ki Yeol} and Jaehyung Cha and Lim, {Hyun Ju} and Eun-Young Kang and Oh, {Yu Whan}",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3348/kjr.2018.0893",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "1195--1206",
journal = "Korean Journal of Radiology",
issn = "1229-6929",
publisher = "Korean Radiological Society",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - 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 Dose Settings

T2 - An Anthropomorphic Chest Phantom Study

AU - Kim, Seung Kwan

AU - Kim, Cherry

AU - Lee, Ki Yeol

AU - Cha, Jaehyung

AU - Lim, Hyun Ju

AU - Kang, Eun-Young

AU - Oh, Yu Whan

PY - 2019/7/1

Y1 - 2019/7/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To investigate the accuracy of model-based iterative reconstruction (MIR) for volume measurement of part-solid nodules (PSNs) and solid nodules (SNs) in comparison with filtered back projection (FBP) or hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) at various radiation dose settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT scanning was performed for eight different diameters of PSNs and SNs placed in the phantom at five radiation dose levels (120 kVp/100 mAs, 120 kVp/50 mAs, 120 kVp/20 mAs, 120 kVp/10 mAs, and 80 kVp/10 mAs). Each CT scan was reconstructed using FBP, HIR, or MIR with three different image definitions (body routine level 1 [IMR-R1], body soft tissue level 1 [IMR-ST1], and sharp plus level 1 [IMR-SP1]; Philips Healthcare). The SN and PSN volumes including each solid/ground-glass opacity portion were measured semi-automatically, after which absolute percentage measurement errors (APEs) of the measured volumes were calculated. Image noise was calculated to assess the image quality. RESULTS: Across all nodules and dose settings, the APEs were significantly lower in MIR than in FBP and HIR (all p < 0.01). The APEs of the smallest inner solid portion of the PSNs (3 mm) and SNs (3 mm) were the lowest when MIR (IMR-R1 and IMR-ST1) was used for reconstruction for all radiation dose settings. (IMR-R1 and IMR-ST1 at 120 kVp/100 mAs, 1.06 ± 1.36 and 8.75 ± 3.96, p < 0.001; at 120 kVp/50 mAs, 1.95 ± 1.56 and 5.61 ± 0.85, p = 0.002; at 120 kVp/20 mAs, 2.88 ± 3.68 and 5.75 ± 1.95, p = 0.001; at 120 kVp/10 mAs, 5.57 ± 6.26 and 6.32 ± 2.91, p = 0.091; at 80 kVp/10 mAs, 5.84 ± 1.96 and 6.90 ± 3.31, p = 0.632). Image noise was significantly lower in MIR than in FBP and HIR for all radiation dose settings (120 kVp/100 mAs, 3.22 ± 0.66; 120 kVp/50 mAs, 4.19 ± 1.37; 120 kVp/20 mAs, 5.49 ± 1.16; 120 kVp/10 mAs, 6.88 ± 1.91; 80 kVp/10 mAs, 12.49 ± 6.14; all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: MIR was the most accurate algorithm for volume measurements of both PSNs and SNs in comparison with FBP and HIR at low-dose as well as standard-dose settings. Specifically, MIR was effective in the volume measurement of the smallest PSNs and SNs.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To investigate the accuracy of model-based iterative reconstruction (MIR) for volume measurement of part-solid nodules (PSNs) and solid nodules (SNs) in comparison with filtered back projection (FBP) or hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) at various radiation dose settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT scanning was performed for eight different diameters of PSNs and SNs placed in the phantom at five radiation dose levels (120 kVp/100 mAs, 120 kVp/50 mAs, 120 kVp/20 mAs, 120 kVp/10 mAs, and 80 kVp/10 mAs). Each CT scan was reconstructed using FBP, HIR, or MIR with three different image definitions (body routine level 1 [IMR-R1], body soft tissue level 1 [IMR-ST1], and sharp plus level 1 [IMR-SP1]; Philips Healthcare). The SN and PSN volumes including each solid/ground-glass opacity portion were measured semi-automatically, after which absolute percentage measurement errors (APEs) of the measured volumes were calculated. Image noise was calculated to assess the image quality. RESULTS: Across all nodules and dose settings, the APEs were significantly lower in MIR than in FBP and HIR (all p < 0.01). The APEs of the smallest inner solid portion of the PSNs (3 mm) and SNs (3 mm) were the lowest when MIR (IMR-R1 and IMR-ST1) was used for reconstruction for all radiation dose settings. (IMR-R1 and IMR-ST1 at 120 kVp/100 mAs, 1.06 ± 1.36 and 8.75 ± 3.96, p < 0.001; at 120 kVp/50 mAs, 1.95 ± 1.56 and 5.61 ± 0.85, p = 0.002; at 120 kVp/20 mAs, 2.88 ± 3.68 and 5.75 ± 1.95, p = 0.001; at 120 kVp/10 mAs, 5.57 ± 6.26 and 6.32 ± 2.91, p = 0.091; at 80 kVp/10 mAs, 5.84 ± 1.96 and 6.90 ± 3.31, p = 0.632). Image noise was significantly lower in MIR than in FBP and HIR for all radiation dose settings (120 kVp/100 mAs, 3.22 ± 0.66; 120 kVp/50 mAs, 4.19 ± 1.37; 120 kVp/20 mAs, 5.49 ± 1.16; 120 kVp/10 mAs, 6.88 ± 1.91; 80 kVp/10 mAs, 12.49 ± 6.14; all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: MIR was the most accurate algorithm for volume measurements of both PSNs and SNs in comparison with FBP and HIR at low-dose as well as standard-dose settings. Specifically, MIR was effective in the volume measurement of the smallest PSNs and SNs.

KW - Lung neoplasm

KW - Multidetector computed tomography

KW - Phantoms, imaging

KW - Radiation dosage

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85069268662&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85069268662&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3348/kjr.2018.0893

DO - 10.3348/kjr.2018.0893

M3 - Article

C2 - 31270983

AN - SCOPUS:85069268662

VL - 20

SP - 1195

EP - 1206

JO - Korean Journal of Radiology

JF - Korean Journal of Radiology

SN - 1229-6929

IS - 7

ER -