Application of Vendor-Neutral Iterative Reconstruction Technique to Pediatric Abdominal Computed Tomography.

Clicks: 262
ID: 25276
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality Improving Quality
0.0 /100
Combines engagement data with AI-assessed academic quality
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Abstract
To compare image qualities between vendor-neutral and vendor-specific hybrid iterative reconstruction (IR) techniques for abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) in young patients.In phantom study, we used an anthropomorphic pediatric phantom, age-equivalent to 5-year-old, and reconstructed CT data using traditional filtered back projection (FBP), vendor-specific and vendor-neutral IR techniques (ClariCT; ClariPI) in various radiation doses. Noise, low-contrast detectability and subjective spatial resolution were compared between FBP, vendor-specific (i.e., iDose1 to 5; Philips Healthcare), and vendor-neutral (i.e., ClariCT1 to 5) IR techniques in phantom. In 43 patients (median, 14 years; age range 1-19 years), noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and qualitative image quality scores of abdominopelvic CT were compared between FBP, iDose level 4 (iDose4), and ClariCT level 2 (ClariCT2), which showed most similar image quality to clinically used vendor-specific IR images (i.e., iDose4) in phantom study. Noise, CNR, and qualitative imaging scores were compared using one-way repeated measure analysis of variance.In phantom study, ClariCT2 showed noise level similar to iDose4 (14.68-7.66 Hounsfield unit [HU] vs. 14.78-6.99 HU at CT dose index volume range of 0.8-3.8 mGy). Subjective low-contrast detectability and spatial resolution were similar between ClariCT2 and iDose4. In clinical study, ClariCT2 was equivalent to iDose4 for noise (14.26-17.33 vs. 16.01-18.90) and CNR (3.55-5.24 vs. 3.20-4.60) ( > 0.05). For qualitative imaging scores, the overall image quality ([reader 1, reader 2]; 2.74 vs. 2.07, 3.02 vs. 2.28) and noise (2.88 vs. 2.23, 2.93 vs. 2.33) of ClariCT2 were superior to those of FBP ( < 0.05), and not different from those of iDose4 (2.74 vs. 2.72, 3.02 vs. 2.98; 2.88 vs. 2.77, 2.93 vs. 2.86) ( > 0.05).Vendor-neutral IR technique shows image quality similar to that of clinically used vendor-specific hybrid IR technique for abdominopelvic CT in young patients.
Reference Key
lim2019applicationkorean Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Lim, Woo Hyeon;Choi, Young Hun;Park, Ji Eun;Cho, Yeon Jin;Lee, Seunghyun;Cheon, Jung Eun;Kim, Woo Sun;Kim, In One;Kim, Jong Hyo;
Journal korean journal of radiology
Year 2019
DOI
10.3348/kjr.2018.0715
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.