Technical Note: Scanner dependence of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction with 3D noise power spectrum central frequency and noise magnitude ratios.

Abstract

In this study, the noise reduction properties of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (IR) on two different CT scanners of 64 and 256-slice were compared and their differences were assessed. The homogeneous module of the ACR CT phantom was scanned on the 64 and 256slices CT scanners from the same vendor in the range of 15-40mA. On each scanner, the data were reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP) and at all strengths of IR with the STANDARD kernel. For each reconstruction, a 3D noise power spectrum (NPS) was calculated and the central frequency ratio in the xy plane (CFRxy ), CFR in the z-direction (CFRz ), and noise magnitude ratio (NMR) were derived. CFR is the central frequency ratio of NPS between the denoised image and the FBP image, and NMR is the ratio of the areas under the NPS curves. Ideally, both CFRxy and CFRz should be near 1, indicating minimal texture changes in both xy and z directions, while NMR should be as close to 0 as possible, indicating more noise reduction. When comparing strengths with equivalent impact on noise texture, IR on the 64-slice reduced the noise magnitude in the xy plane more than that on the 256-slice. In the z-direction, the IR on the 256-slice produced a central frequency shift on the 256-slice but not on the 64-slice. In addition, the noise reduction effects of the IR on the 256-slice were affected when radiation exposure was below 2.0mGy, but there was no observable dose-dependence on the 64-slice. Our noise property analysis revealed that iterative reconstructions on different scanner platforms from the same vendor can be distinct, with unique effects on the noise texture and magnitude in CT images. The IR on a 64-slice scanner provides slightly enhanced noise reduction and maintains a noise reduction rate independent of dose, unlike the one on a 256-slice scanner. Notably, the IR on the 64-slice scanner was a 2D noise reduction technique (NRT), while the one on the 256-slice was a 3D NRT. These observations showcase the impact of different NRTs on clinical CT images, even when comparing the same NRT on different scanners.