Ultra-low-dose lung screening CT with model-based iterative reconstruction: an assessment of image quality and lesion conspicuity

10Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: Reducing radiation dose inevitably increases image noise, and thus, it is important in low-dose computed tomography (CT) to maintain image quality and lesion detection performance. Purpose: To assess image quality and lesion conspicuity of ultra-low-dose CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) and to determine a suitable protocol for lung screening CT. Material and Methods: A total of 120 heavy smokers underwent lung screening CT and were randomly and equally assigned to one of five groups: group 1 = 120 kVp, 25 mAs, with FBP reconstruction; group 2 = 120 kVp, 10 mAs, with MBIR; group 3 = 100 kVp, 15 mAs, with MBIR; group 4 = 100 kVp, 10 mAs, with MBIR; and group 5 = 100 kVp, 5 mAs, with MBIR. Two radiologists evaluated intergroup differences with respect to radiation dose, image noise, image quality, and lesion conspicuity using the Kruskal–Wallis test and the Chi-square test. Results: Effective doses were 61–87% lower in groups 2–5 than in group 1. Image noises in groups 1 and 5 were significantly higher than in the other groups (P < 0.001). Overall image quality was best in group 1, but diagnostic acceptability of overall image qualities in groups 1–3 was not significantly different (all P values > 0.05). Lesion conspicuities were similar in groups 1–4, but were significantly poorer in group 5. Conclusion: Lung screening CT with MBIR obtained at 100 kVp and 15 mAs enables a ∼60% reduction in radiation dose versus low-dose CT, while maintaining image quality and lesion conspicuity.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ju, Y. H., Lee, G., Lee, J. W., Hong, S. B., Suh, Y. J., & Jeong, Y. J. (2018). Ultra-low-dose lung screening CT with model-based iterative reconstruction: an assessment of image quality and lesion conspicuity. Acta Radiologica, 59(5), 553–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185117726099

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free