SpringerLink
Log in

Performance evaluation of two iterative reconstruction algorithms, MBIR and ASIR, in low radiation dose and low contrast dose abdominal CT in children

  • ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The adverse effect of low-dose CT on image quality may be mitigated using iterative reconstructions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the full model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) and adaptive statistical reconstruction (ASIR) algorithms in low radiation dose and low contrast dose abdominal contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) in children.

Methods

A total of 59 children (32 males and 27 females) undergoing low radiation dose (100kVp) and low contrast dose (270 mgI/ml) abdominal CECT were enrolled. The median age was 4.0 years (ranging from 0.3 to 13 years). The raw data were reconstructed with MBIR, ASIR and filtered back-projection (FBP) algorithms into 6 groups (MBIR, 100%ASIR, 80%ASIR, 60%ASIR, 40%ASIR and FBP). The CT numbers, standard deviations, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of liver, pancreas, kidney and abdominal aorta were measured. Two radiologists independently evaluated the subjective image quality including the overall image noise and structure display ability on a 4-point scale with 3 being clinically acceptable. The measurements among the reconstruction groups were compared using one-way ANOVA.

Results

The overall image noise score and display ability were 4.00 ± 0.00 and 4.00 ± 0.00 with MBIR and 3.27 ± 0.33 and 3.25 ± 0.43 with ASIR100%, respectively, which met the diagnostic requirement; other reconstructions couldn’t meet the diagnostic requirements. Compared with FBP images, the noise of MBIR images was reduced by 62.86–65.73% for the respective organs (F = 48.15–80.47, P < 0.05), and CNR increased by 151.38–170.69% (F = 22.94–38.02, P < 0.05).

Conclusions

MBIR or ASIR100% improves the image quality of low radiation dose and contrast dose abdominal CT in children to meet the diagnostic requirements, and MBIR has the best performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Canada)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography–an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Takahashi Y, Ota H, Omura K et al (2018) Image quality and radiation dose of low-tube-voltage CT with reduced contrast media for right adrenal vein imaging. Eur J Radiol 98:150–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cheng B, **ng H, Lei D et al (2018) Impact of iterative model reconstruction combined with dose reduction on the image quality of head and neck CTA in children. Sci Rep 8:12613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Yu L, Bruesewitz MR, Thomas KB et al (2011) Optimal tube potential for radiation dose reduction in pediatric CT: principles, clinical implementations, and pitfalls. Radiographics 31:835–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Iyama Y, Nakaura T, Iyama A et al (2017) Feasibility of iterative model reconstruction for unenhanced lumbar CT. Radiology 284:153–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhao Y, Zuo Z, Cheng S et al (2018) CT pulmonary angiography using organ dose modulation with an iterative reconstruction algorithm and 3D Smart mA in different body mass indices: image quality and radiation dose. Radiol Med 123:676–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Yan C, Xu J, Liang C et al (2018) Radiation dose reduction by using CT with Iterative model reconstruction in patients with pulmonary invasive fungal infection. Radiology 288:285–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Nakagawa M, Ozawa Y, Sakurai K et al (2015) Image quality at low tube voltage (70 kV) and sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction for computed tomography in infants with congenital heart disease. Pediatr Radiol 45:1472–1479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pontana F, Billard AS, Duhamel A et al (2016) Effect of iterative reconstruction on the detection of systemic sclerosis-related interstitial lung disease: clinical experience in 55 patients. Radiology 279:297–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fletcher JG, Fidler JL, Venkatesh SK et al (2018) Observer performance with varying radiation dose and reconstruction methods for detection of hepatic metastases. Radiology 289:455–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Miéville FA, Berteloot L, Grandjean A et al (2013) Model-based iterative reconstruction in pediatric chest CT: assessment of image quality in a prospective study of children with cystic fibrosis. Pediatr Radiol 43:558–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee SH, Yun SJ, Jo HH et al (2018) Diagnosis of lumbar spinal fractures in emergency department: low-dose versus standard-dose CT using model-based iterative reconstruction. Clin Imaging 14:216–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sun J, Peng Y, Duan X et al (2014) Image quality in children with low-radiation chest CT using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and model-based iterative reconstruction. PLoS ONE 9:e96045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kataria B, Althén JN, Smedby Ö et al (2018) Assessment of image quality in abdominal CT: potential dose reduction with model-based iterative reconstruction. Eur Radiol 28:2464–2473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Moloney F, Twomey M, Fama D et al (2018) Determination of a suitable low-dose abdominopelvic CT protocol using model-based iterative reconstruction through cadaveric study. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 62:625–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fontarensky M, Alfidja A, Perignon R et al (2015) Reduced radiation dose with model-based iterative reconstruction versus standard dose with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT for diagnosis of acute renal colic. Radiology 276:156–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Volders D, Bols A, Haspeslagh M et al (2013) Model-based iterative reconstruction and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominal CT: comparison of image quality in the detection of colorectal liver metastases. Radiology 269:469–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Patino M, Fuentes JM, Singh S et al (2015) Iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominopelvic CT: Technical concepts and clinical implementation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:W19–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sun J, Zhang Q, Hu D et al (2015) Improving pulmonary vessel image quality with a full model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm in 80kVp low-dose chest CT for pediatric patients aged 0–6 years. Acta Radiol 56:761–768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sun J, Yu T, Liu J et al (2017) Image quality improvement using model based iterative reconstruction in low dose chest CT for children with necrotizing pneumonia. BMC Med Imaging 17:24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Singh S, Kalra MK, Gilman MD et al (2011) Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: a pilot study. Radiology 259:565–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Matsuoka S, Hunsaker AR, Gill RR et al (2009) Vascular enhancement and image quality of MDCT pulmonary angiography in 400 cases: comparison of standard and low kilovoltage settings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:1651–1656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Khong PL, Ringertz H et al (2013) ICRP publication 121: radiological protection in paediatric diagnostic and interventional radiology. Ann ICRP. 42:1–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express our sincere thanks to Dr. Jianying Li for his technical support in understanding the model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm.

Funding

This study was supported by the Bei**g Children’s Hospital Young Investigator Program (Grant Numbers BCH-YIPB-2016–06) and Clinical Technology Innovation Project of Bei**g Municipal Commission (Grant Numbers xmlx201407).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Bei**g Children’s Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.56, Nanlishi Road, **cheng District, Bei**g, 100045, China

    Jihang Sun, Lixin Yang, Qifeng Zhang & Yun Peng

  2. Department of Radiology, Fujian Provincial Maternity and Children’s Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, No.18 Daoshan Road, Gulou District, Fuzhou, 350000, Fujian, China

    Zuofu Zhou

  3. Department of General Surgery, Bei**g Children’s Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.56, Nanlishi Road, **cheng District, Bei**g, 100045, China

    Dan Zhang

  4. Department of Surgery Oncology, Bei**g Children’s Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.56, Nanlishi Road, **cheng District, Bei**g, 100045, China

    Wei Han

Authors
  1. Jihang Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lixin Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zuofu Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wei Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Qifeng Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yun Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yun Peng.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The present study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Bei**g Children’s Hospital. The legal guardian of all the children signed written informed consents.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 21 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sun, J., Yang, L., Zhou, Z. et al. Performance evaluation of two iterative reconstruction algorithms, MBIR and ASIR, in low radiation dose and low contrast dose abdominal CT in children. Radiol med 125, 918–925 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-020-01191-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-020-01191-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation