Research ExplorerPublicationsComparison of image quality and visibility of normal and abn...

Comparison of image quality and visibility of normal and abnormal findings at submillisievert chest CT using filtered back projection, iterative model reconstruction (IMR) and iDose(4)™

Standard

Comparison of image quality and visibility of normal and abnormal findings at submillisievert chest CT using filtered back projection, iterative model reconstruction (IMR) and iDose(4)™. / Laqmani, Azien; Avanesov, Maxim; Butscheidt, Sebastian; Kurfürst, Maximillian; Sehner, Susanne; Schmidt-Holtz, Jakob; Derlin, Thorsten; Behzadi, Cyrus; Nagel, Hans D; Adam, Gerhard; Regier, Marc.

In: EUR J RADIOL, Vol. 85, No. 11, 11.2016, p. 1971-1979.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Laqmani, A, Avanesov, M, Butscheidt, S, Kurfürst, M, Sehner, S, Schmidt-Holtz, J, Derlin, T, Behzadi, C, Nagel, HD, Adam, G & Regier, M 2016, 'Comparison of image quality and visibility of normal and abnormal findings at submillisievert chest CT using filtered back projection, iterative model reconstruction (IMR) and iDose(4)™', EUR J RADIOL, vol. 85, no. 11, pp. 1971-1979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.09.001

APA

Laqmani, A., Avanesov, M., Butscheidt, S., Kurfürst, M., Sehner, S., Schmidt-Holtz, J., Derlin, T., Behzadi, C., Nagel, H. D., Adam, G., & Regier, M. (2016). Comparison of image quality and visibility of normal and abnormal findings at submillisievert chest CT using filtered back projection, iterative model reconstruction (IMR) and iDose(4)™. EUR J RADIOL, 85(11), 1971-1979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.09.001

Vancouver

Laqmani A, Avanesov M, Butscheidt S, Kurfürst M, Sehner S, Schmidt-Holtz J et al. Comparison of image quality and visibility of normal and abnormal findings at submillisievert chest CT using filtered back projection, iterative model reconstruction (IMR) and iDose(4)™. EUR J RADIOL. 2016 Nov;85(11):1971-1979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.09.001

Bibtex

@article{6a6125b7c539474ba82df4c75a3aac03,
title = "Comparison of image quality and visibility of normal and abnormal findings at submillisievert chest CT using filtered back projection, iterative model reconstruction (IMR) and iDose(4){\texttrademark}",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To compare both image quality and visibility of normal and abnormal findings at submillisievert chest CT (smSv-CT) using filtered back projection (FBP) and the two different iterative reconstruction (IR) techniques iterative model reconstruction (IMR) and iDose(4){\texttrademark}.MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board approved study was based on retrospective interpretation of clinically indicated acquired data. The requirement to obtain informed consent was waived. 81 patients with suspected pneumonia underwent smSv-CT (Brilliance iCT, Philips Healthcare; mean effective dose: 0.86±0.2mSv). Data were reconstructed using FBP and two different IR techniques iDose(4){\texttrademark} and IMR (Philips Healthcare) at various iteration levels. Objective image noise (OIN) was measured. Two experienced readers independently assessed all images for image noise, image appearance and visibility of normal anatomic and abnormal findings. A random intercept model was used for statistical analysis.RESULTS: Compared to FBP and iDose(4){\texttrademark}, IMR reduced OIN up to 88% and 72%, respectively (p<0.001). A mild blotchy image appearance was seen in IMR images, affecting diagnostic confidence. iDose(4){\texttrademark} images provided satisfactory to good image quality for visibility of normal and abnormal findings and were superior to FBP (p<0.001). IMR images were significantly inferior for visibility of normal structures compared to iDose(4){\texttrademark}, while being superior for visibility of abnormal findings except for reticular pattern (p<0.001).CONCLUSION: IMR results for visibility of normal and abnormal lung findings are heterogeneous, indicating that IMR may not represent a priority technique for clinical routine. iDose(4){\texttrademark} represents a suitable method for evaluation of lung tissue at submillisievert chest CT.",
keywords = "Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Lung, Male, Middle Aged, Pneumonia, Prospective Studies, Radiation Dosage, Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Reproducibility of Results, Retrospective Studies, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Comparative Study, Journal Article",
author = "Azien Laqmani and Maxim Avanesov and Sebastian Butscheidt and Maximillian Kurf{\"u}rst and Susanne Sehner and Jakob Schmidt-Holtz and Thorsten Derlin and Cyrus Behzadi and Nagel, {Hans D} and Gerhard Adam and Marc Regier",
note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.",
year = "2016",
month = nov,
doi = "10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.09.001",
language = "English",
volume = "85",
pages = "1971--1979",
journal = "EUR J RADIOL",
issn = "0720-048X",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "11",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of image quality and visibility of normal and abnormal findings at submillisievert chest CT using filtered back projection, iterative model reconstruction (IMR) and iDose(4)™

AU - Laqmani, Azien

AU - Avanesov, Maxim

AU - Butscheidt, Sebastian

AU - Kurfürst, Maximillian

AU - Sehner, Susanne

AU - Schmidt-Holtz, Jakob

AU - Derlin, Thorsten

AU - Behzadi, Cyrus

AU - Nagel, Hans D

AU - Adam, Gerhard

AU - Regier, Marc

N1 - Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

PY - 2016/11

Y1 - 2016/11

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To compare both image quality and visibility of normal and abnormal findings at submillisievert chest CT (smSv-CT) using filtered back projection (FBP) and the two different iterative reconstruction (IR) techniques iterative model reconstruction (IMR) and iDose(4)™.MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board approved study was based on retrospective interpretation of clinically indicated acquired data. The requirement to obtain informed consent was waived. 81 patients with suspected pneumonia underwent smSv-CT (Brilliance iCT, Philips Healthcare; mean effective dose: 0.86±0.2mSv). Data were reconstructed using FBP and two different IR techniques iDose(4)™ and IMR (Philips Healthcare) at various iteration levels. Objective image noise (OIN) was measured. Two experienced readers independently assessed all images for image noise, image appearance and visibility of normal anatomic and abnormal findings. A random intercept model was used for statistical analysis.RESULTS: Compared to FBP and iDose(4)™, IMR reduced OIN up to 88% and 72%, respectively (p<0.001). A mild blotchy image appearance was seen in IMR images, affecting diagnostic confidence. iDose(4)™ images provided satisfactory to good image quality for visibility of normal and abnormal findings and were superior to FBP (p<0.001). IMR images were significantly inferior for visibility of normal structures compared to iDose(4)™, while being superior for visibility of abnormal findings except for reticular pattern (p<0.001).CONCLUSION: IMR results for visibility of normal and abnormal lung findings are heterogeneous, indicating that IMR may not represent a priority technique for clinical routine. iDose(4)™ represents a suitable method for evaluation of lung tissue at submillisievert chest CT.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To compare both image quality and visibility of normal and abnormal findings at submillisievert chest CT (smSv-CT) using filtered back projection (FBP) and the two different iterative reconstruction (IR) techniques iterative model reconstruction (IMR) and iDose(4)™.MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board approved study was based on retrospective interpretation of clinically indicated acquired data. The requirement to obtain informed consent was waived. 81 patients with suspected pneumonia underwent smSv-CT (Brilliance iCT, Philips Healthcare; mean effective dose: 0.86±0.2mSv). Data were reconstructed using FBP and two different IR techniques iDose(4)™ and IMR (Philips Healthcare) at various iteration levels. Objective image noise (OIN) was measured. Two experienced readers independently assessed all images for image noise, image appearance and visibility of normal anatomic and abnormal findings. A random intercept model was used for statistical analysis.RESULTS: Compared to FBP and iDose(4)™, IMR reduced OIN up to 88% and 72%, respectively (p<0.001). A mild blotchy image appearance was seen in IMR images, affecting diagnostic confidence. iDose(4)™ images provided satisfactory to good image quality for visibility of normal and abnormal findings and were superior to FBP (p<0.001). IMR images were significantly inferior for visibility of normal structures compared to iDose(4)™, while being superior for visibility of abnormal findings except for reticular pattern (p<0.001).CONCLUSION: IMR results for visibility of normal and abnormal lung findings are heterogeneous, indicating that IMR may not represent a priority technique for clinical routine. iDose(4)™ represents a suitable method for evaluation of lung tissue at submillisievert chest CT.

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Image Processing, Computer-Assisted

KW - Lung

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Pneumonia

KW - Prospective Studies

KW - Radiation Dosage

KW - Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted

KW - Reproducibility of Results

KW - Retrospective Studies

KW - Tomography, X-Ray Computed

KW - Comparative Study

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.09.001

DO - 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.09.001

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 27776648

VL - 85

SP - 1971

EP - 1979

JO - EUR J RADIOL

JF - EUR J RADIOL

SN - 0720-048X

IS - 11

ER -