Computed Tomography Image Quality Evaluation of a New Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm in the Abdomen (Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction-V) a Comparison With Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction, Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction, and Filtered Back Projection Reconstructions

J Comput Assist Tomogr. Mar/Apr 2018;42(2):184-190. doi: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000666.

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare abdominopelvic computed tomography images reconstructed with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V (ASIR-V) with model-based iterative reconstruction (Veo 3.0), ASIR, and filtered back projection (FBP).

Methods and materials: Abdominopelvic computed tomography scans for 36 patients (26 males and 10 females) were reconstructed using FBP, ASIR (80%), Veo 3.0, and ASIR-V (30%, 60%, 90%). Mean ± SD patient age was 32 ± 10 years with mean ± SD body mass index of 26.9 ± 4.4 kg/m. Images were reviewed by 2 independent readers in a blinded, randomized fashion. Hounsfield unit, noise, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) values were calculated for each reconstruction algorithm for further comparison. Phantom evaluation of low-contrast detectability (LCD) and high-contrast resolution was performed.

Results: Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V 30%, ASIR-V 60%, and ASIR 80% were generally superior qualitatively compared with ASIR-V 90%, Veo 3.0, and FBP (P < 0.05). Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V 90% showed superior LCD and had the highest CNR in the liver, aorta, and, pancreas, measuring 7.32 ± 3.22, 11.60 ± 4.25, and 4.60 ± 2.31, respectively, compared with the next best series of ASIR-V 60% with respective CNR values of 5.54 ± 2.39, 8.78 ± 3.15, and 3.49 ± 1.77 (P <0.0001). Veo 3.0 and ASIR 80% had the best and worst spatial resolution, respectively.

Conclusions: Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V 30% and ASIR-V 60% provided the best combination of qualitative and quantitative performance. Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction 80% was equivalent qualitatively, but demonstrated inferior spatial resolution and LCD.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Algorithms
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Image Processing, Computer-Assisted / methods*
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted / methods*
  • Radiography, Abdominal / methods*
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Tomography, X-Ray Computed / methods*
  • Young Adult