Abstract

Improved image quality is clinically desired for contrast-enhanced CT of the neck. We compared 30% adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and model-based iterative reconstruction algorithms for the assessment of image quality of contrast-enhanced CT of the neck. Neck contrast-enhanced CT data from 64 consecutive patients were reconstructed retrospectively by using 30% adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and model-based iterative reconstruction. Objective image quality was assessed by comparing SNR, contrast-to-noise ratio, and background noise at levels 1 (mandible) and 2 (superior mediastinum). Two independent blinded readers subjectively graded the image quality on a scale of 1-5, (grade 5 = excellent image quality without artifacts and grade 1 = nondiagnostic image quality with significant artifacts). The percentage of agreement and disagreement between the 2 readers was assessed. Compared with 30% adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, model-based iterative reconstruction significantly improved the SNR and contrast-to-noise ratio at levels 1 and 2. Model-based iterative reconstruction also decreased background noise at level 1 (P = .016), though there was no difference at level 2 (P = .61). Model-based iterative reconstruction was scored higher than 30% adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction by both reviewers at the nasopharynx (P < .001) and oropharynx (P < .001) and for overall image quality (P < .001) and was scored lower at the vocal cords (P < .001) and sternoclavicular junction (P < .001), due to artifacts related to thyroid shielding that were specific for model-based iterative reconstruction. Model-based iterative reconstruction offers improved subjective and objective image quality as evidenced by a higher SNR and contrast-to-noise ratio and lower background noise within the same dataset for contrast-enhanced neck CT. Model-based iterative reconstruction has the potential to reduce the radiation dose while maintaining the image quality, with a minor downside being prominent artifacts related to thyroid shield use on model-based iterative reconstruction.

Highlights

  • BACKGROUND AND PURPOSEImproved image quality is clinically desired for contrast-enhanced CT of the neck

  • Model-based iterative reconstruction was scored higher than 30% adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction by both reviewers at the nasopharynx (P Ͻ .001) and oropharynx (P Ͻ .001) and for overall image quality (P Ͻ .001) and was scored lower at the vocal cords (P Ͻ .001) and sternoclavicular junction (P Ͻ .001), due to artifacts related to thyroid shielding that were specific for model-based iterative reconstruction

  • Image reconstruction algorithms have evolved from the traditional analytic algorithms such as filtered back-projection (FBP) to newer iterative reconstruction methods such as adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR; GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, Wisconsin) and most recently model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR; GE Healthcare), which models system noise statistics and optics

Read more

Summary

Methods

Neck contrast-enhanced CT data from 64 consecutive patients were reconstructed retrospectively by using 30% adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and model-based iterative reconstruction. Objective image quality was assessed by comparing SNR, contrast-to-noise ratio, and background noise at levels 1 (mandible) and 2 (superior mediastinum). The percentage of agreement and disagreement between the 2 readers was assessed. Patients The local institutional review board approved this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act– compliant retrospective study. Sixty-four consecutive contrast-enhanced CT neck examinations, performed during June and July 2013, were included in this study. All CT examinations were performed on a 64 – detector row multidetector CT (Discovery HD 75; GE Healthcare), with tube current modulation applied at a noise index of 40 Hounsfield units (HU) for 0.625-mm section thickness by using 0.5-second helical gantry rotation.

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call