Can iterative reconstruction algorithms replace tube loading compensation in low kVp hepatic CT? Subjective versus objective image quality

Forskningsoutput: TidskriftsbidragArtikel i vetenskaplig tidskrift

Standard

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Can iterative reconstruction algorithms replace tube loading compensation in low kVp hepatic CT?

T2 - Subjective versus objective image quality

AU - Holmquist, Fredrik

AU - Söderberg, Marcus

AU - Nyman, Ulf

AU - Fält, Tobias

AU - Siemund, Roger

AU - Geijer, Mats

N1 - © The Foundation Acta Radiologica 2020.

PY - 2020/3

Y1 - 2020/3

N2 - Background: Hepatic computed tomography (CT) with decreased peak kilovoltage (kVp) may be used to reduce contrast medium doses in patients at risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI); however, it increases image noise. To preserve image quality, noise has been controlled by X-ray tube loading (mAs) compensation (TLC), i.e. increased mAs. Another option to control image noise would be to use iterative reconstructions (IR) algorithms without TLC (No-TLC). It is unclear whether this may preserve image quality or only reduce image noise.Purpose: To evaluate image quality of 80 kVp hepatic CT with TLC and filtered back projection (FBP) compared with 80 kVp with No-TLC and IR algorithms (SAFIRE 3 and 5) in patients with eGFR <45 mL/min.Material and Methods: Forty patients (BMI 18-32 kg/m2) were examined with both protocols following injection of 300 mg I/kg. Hepatic attenuation, image noise, enhancement, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and subjective image quality were evaluated for each patient.Results: Comparing TLC/FBP with No-TLC/IR-S5, there were no significant differences regarding hepatic attenuation, image noise, enhancement, SNR and CNR: 114 vs. 115 HU, 14 vs. 14 HU, 55 vs. 57 HU, 8.0 vs. 8.4, and 3.8 vs. 4.0 in median, respectively. No-TLC/IR-S3 resulted in higher image noise and lower SNR and CNR than TLC/FBP. Subjective image quality scoring with visual grading showed statistically significantly inferior scores for IR-S5 images.Conclusion: CT of 80 kVp to reduce contrast medium dose in patients at risk of CI-AKI combined with IR algorithms with unchanged tube loading to control image noise does not provide sufficient diagnostic quality.

AB - Background: Hepatic computed tomography (CT) with decreased peak kilovoltage (kVp) may be used to reduce contrast medium doses in patients at risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI); however, it increases image noise. To preserve image quality, noise has been controlled by X-ray tube loading (mAs) compensation (TLC), i.e. increased mAs. Another option to control image noise would be to use iterative reconstructions (IR) algorithms without TLC (No-TLC). It is unclear whether this may preserve image quality or only reduce image noise.Purpose: To evaluate image quality of 80 kVp hepatic CT with TLC and filtered back projection (FBP) compared with 80 kVp with No-TLC and IR algorithms (SAFIRE 3 and 5) in patients with eGFR <45 mL/min.Material and Methods: Forty patients (BMI 18-32 kg/m2) were examined with both protocols following injection of 300 mg I/kg. Hepatic attenuation, image noise, enhancement, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and subjective image quality were evaluated for each patient.Results: Comparing TLC/FBP with No-TLC/IR-S5, there were no significant differences regarding hepatic attenuation, image noise, enhancement, SNR and CNR: 114 vs. 115 HU, 14 vs. 14 HU, 55 vs. 57 HU, 8.0 vs. 8.4, and 3.8 vs. 4.0 in median, respectively. No-TLC/IR-S3 resulted in higher image noise and lower SNR and CNR than TLC/FBP. Subjective image quality scoring with visual grading showed statistically significantly inferior scores for IR-S5 images.Conclusion: CT of 80 kVp to reduce contrast medium dose in patients at risk of CI-AKI combined with IR algorithms with unchanged tube loading to control image noise does not provide sufficient diagnostic quality.

U2 - 10.1177/2058460120910575

DO - 10.1177/2058460120910575

M3 - Article

C2 - 32206344

VL - 9

JO - Acta Radiologica Open

JF - Acta Radiologica Open

SN - 2058-4601

IS - 3

ER -