Comparison of filtered back projection, hybrid iterative reconstruction, model-based iterative reconstruction, and virtual monoenergetic reconstruction images at both low-and standard-dose settings in measurement of emphysema volume and airway wall thickness: A CT phantom study

Cherry Kim, Ki Yeol Lee, Chol Shin, Eun-Young Kang, Yu Whan Oh, Moin Ha, Chang Sub Ko, Jaehyung Cha

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of emphysema volume (EV) and airway measurements (AMs) produced by various iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms and virtual monoenergetic images (VME) at both low-and standard-dose settings. Materials and Methods: Computed tomography (CT) images were obtained on phantom at both low-(30 mAs at 120 kVp) and standard-doses (100 mAs at 120 kVp). Each CT scan was reconstructed using filtered back projection, hybrid IR (iDose4; Philips Healthcare), model-based IR (IMR-R1, IMR-ST1, IMR-SP1; Philips Healthcare), and VME at 70 keV (VME70). The EV of each air column and wall area percentage (WA%) of each airway tube were measured in all algorithms. Absolute percentage measurement errors of EV (APEvol) and AM (APEWA%) were then calculated. Results: Emphysema volume was most accurately measured in IMR-R1 (APEvol in low-dose, 0.053 ± 0.002; APEvol in standard-dose, 0.047 ± 0.003; all p < 0.001) and AM was the most accurate in IMR-SP1 on both low-and standard-doses CT (APEWA% in low-dose, 0.067 ± 0.002; APEWA% in standard-dose, 0.06 ± 0.003; all p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the APEvol of IMR-R1 between low-and standard-doses (all p > 0.05). VME70 showed a significantly higher APEvol than iDose4, IMR-R1, and IMR-ST1 (all p < 0.004). VME70 also showed a significantly higher APEWA% compared with the other algorithms (all p < 0.001). Conclusion: IMR was the most accurate technique for measurement of both EV and airway wall thickness. However, VME70 did not show a significantly better accuracy compared with other algorithms.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)809-817
Number of pages9
JournalKorean Journal of Radiology
Volume19
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018 Jul 1

Fingerprint

Computer-Assisted Image Processing
Emphysema
Tomography
Delivery of Health Care
Air

Keywords

  • Airway wall thickness
  • Computed tomography
  • Emphysema volume
  • Model-based iterative reconstruction
  • Virtual monoenergetic image

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

@article{e3f4fc2185814233af71e8904d5f2be6,
title = "Comparison of filtered back projection, hybrid iterative reconstruction, model-based iterative reconstruction, and virtual monoenergetic reconstruction images at both low-and standard-dose settings in measurement of emphysema volume and airway wall thickness: A CT phantom study",
abstract = "Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of emphysema volume (EV) and airway measurements (AMs) produced by various iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms and virtual monoenergetic images (VME) at both low-and standard-dose settings. Materials and Methods: Computed tomography (CT) images were obtained on phantom at both low-(30 mAs at 120 kVp) and standard-doses (100 mAs at 120 kVp). Each CT scan was reconstructed using filtered back projection, hybrid IR (iDose4; Philips Healthcare), model-based IR (IMR-R1, IMR-ST1, IMR-SP1; Philips Healthcare), and VME at 70 keV (VME70). The EV of each air column and wall area percentage (WA{\%}) of each airway tube were measured in all algorithms. Absolute percentage measurement errors of EV (APEvol) and AM (APEWA{\%}) were then calculated. Results: Emphysema volume was most accurately measured in IMR-R1 (APEvol in low-dose, 0.053 ± 0.002; APEvol in standard-dose, 0.047 ± 0.003; all p < 0.001) and AM was the most accurate in IMR-SP1 on both low-and standard-doses CT (APEWA{\%} in low-dose, 0.067 ± 0.002; APEWA{\%} in standard-dose, 0.06 ± 0.003; all p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the APEvol of IMR-R1 between low-and standard-doses (all p > 0.05). VME70 showed a significantly higher APEvol than iDose4, IMR-R1, and IMR-ST1 (all p < 0.004). VME70 also showed a significantly higher APEWA{\%} compared with the other algorithms (all p < 0.001). Conclusion: IMR was the most accurate technique for measurement of both EV and airway wall thickness. However, VME70 did not show a significantly better accuracy compared with other algorithms.",
keywords = "Airway wall thickness, Computed tomography, Emphysema volume, Model-based iterative reconstruction, Virtual monoenergetic image",
author = "Cherry Kim and Lee, {Ki Yeol} and Chol Shin and Eun-Young Kang and Oh, {Yu Whan} and Moin Ha and Ko, {Chang Sub} and Jaehyung Cha",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3348/kjr.2018.19.4.809",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "809--817",
journal = "Korean Journal of Radiology",
issn = "1229-6929",
publisher = "Korean Radiological Society",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of filtered back projection, hybrid iterative reconstruction, model-based iterative reconstruction, and virtual monoenergetic reconstruction images at both low-and standard-dose settings in measurement of emphysema volume and airway wall thickness

T2 - A CT phantom study

AU - Kim, Cherry

AU - Lee, Ki Yeol

AU - Shin, Chol

AU - Kang, Eun-Young

AU - Oh, Yu Whan

AU - Ha, Moin

AU - Ko, Chang Sub

AU - Cha, Jaehyung

PY - 2018/7/1

Y1 - 2018/7/1

N2 - Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of emphysema volume (EV) and airway measurements (AMs) produced by various iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms and virtual monoenergetic images (VME) at both low-and standard-dose settings. Materials and Methods: Computed tomography (CT) images were obtained on phantom at both low-(30 mAs at 120 kVp) and standard-doses (100 mAs at 120 kVp). Each CT scan was reconstructed using filtered back projection, hybrid IR (iDose4; Philips Healthcare), model-based IR (IMR-R1, IMR-ST1, IMR-SP1; Philips Healthcare), and VME at 70 keV (VME70). The EV of each air column and wall area percentage (WA%) of each airway tube were measured in all algorithms. Absolute percentage measurement errors of EV (APEvol) and AM (APEWA%) were then calculated. Results: Emphysema volume was most accurately measured in IMR-R1 (APEvol in low-dose, 0.053 ± 0.002; APEvol in standard-dose, 0.047 ± 0.003; all p < 0.001) and AM was the most accurate in IMR-SP1 on both low-and standard-doses CT (APEWA% in low-dose, 0.067 ± 0.002; APEWA% in standard-dose, 0.06 ± 0.003; all p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the APEvol of IMR-R1 between low-and standard-doses (all p > 0.05). VME70 showed a significantly higher APEvol than iDose4, IMR-R1, and IMR-ST1 (all p < 0.004). VME70 also showed a significantly higher APEWA% compared with the other algorithms (all p < 0.001). Conclusion: IMR was the most accurate technique for measurement of both EV and airway wall thickness. However, VME70 did not show a significantly better accuracy compared with other algorithms.

AB - Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of emphysema volume (EV) and airway measurements (AMs) produced by various iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms and virtual monoenergetic images (VME) at both low-and standard-dose settings. Materials and Methods: Computed tomography (CT) images were obtained on phantom at both low-(30 mAs at 120 kVp) and standard-doses (100 mAs at 120 kVp). Each CT scan was reconstructed using filtered back projection, hybrid IR (iDose4; Philips Healthcare), model-based IR (IMR-R1, IMR-ST1, IMR-SP1; Philips Healthcare), and VME at 70 keV (VME70). The EV of each air column and wall area percentage (WA%) of each airway tube were measured in all algorithms. Absolute percentage measurement errors of EV (APEvol) and AM (APEWA%) were then calculated. Results: Emphysema volume was most accurately measured in IMR-R1 (APEvol in low-dose, 0.053 ± 0.002; APEvol in standard-dose, 0.047 ± 0.003; all p < 0.001) and AM was the most accurate in IMR-SP1 on both low-and standard-doses CT (APEWA% in low-dose, 0.067 ± 0.002; APEWA% in standard-dose, 0.06 ± 0.003; all p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the APEvol of IMR-R1 between low-and standard-doses (all p > 0.05). VME70 showed a significantly higher APEvol than iDose4, IMR-R1, and IMR-ST1 (all p < 0.004). VME70 also showed a significantly higher APEWA% compared with the other algorithms (all p < 0.001). Conclusion: IMR was the most accurate technique for measurement of both EV and airway wall thickness. However, VME70 did not show a significantly better accuracy compared with other algorithms.

KW - Airway wall thickness

KW - Computed tomography

KW - Emphysema volume

KW - Model-based iterative reconstruction

KW - Virtual monoenergetic image

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048622660&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85048622660&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3348/kjr.2018.19.4.809

DO - 10.3348/kjr.2018.19.4.809

M3 - Article

C2 - 29962888

AN - SCOPUS:85048622660

VL - 19

SP - 809

EP - 817

JO - Korean Journal of Radiology

JF - Korean Journal of Radiology

SN - 1229-6929

IS - 4

ER -