Cargando…
Comparison of Filtered Back Projection, Hybrid Iterative Reconstruction, Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction, and Virtual Monoenergetic Reconstruction Images at Both Low- and Standard-Dose Settings in Measurement of Emphysema Volume and Airway Wall Thickness: A CT Phantom Study
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of emphysema volume (EV) and airway measurements (AMs) produced by various iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms and virtual monoenergetic images (VME) at both low- and standard-dose settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Computed tomography (CT) images were obtained...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Korean Society of Radiology
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6005943/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29962888 http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.19.4.809 |
_version_ | 1783332760134352896 |
---|---|
author | Kim, Cherry Lee, Ki Yeol Shin, Chol Kang, Eun-Young Oh, Yu-Whan Ha, Moin Ko, Chang Sub Cha, Jaehyung |
author_facet | Kim, Cherry Lee, Ki Yeol Shin, Chol Kang, Eun-Young Oh, Yu-Whan Ha, Moin Ko, Chang Sub Cha, Jaehyung |
author_sort | Kim, Cherry |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of emphysema volume (EV) and airway measurements (AMs) produced by various iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms and virtual monoenergetic images (VME) at both low- and standard-dose settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Computed tomography (CT) images were obtained on phantom at both low- (30 mAs at 120 kVp) and standard-doses (100 mAs at 120 kVp). Each CT scan was reconstructed using filtered back projection, hybrid IR (iDose(4); Philips Healthcare), model-based IR (IMR-R1, IMR-ST1, IMR-SP1; Philips Healthcare), and VME at 70 keV (VME70). The EV of each air column and wall area percentage (WA%) of each airway tube were measured in all algorithms. Absolute percentage measurement errors of EV (APE(vol)) and AM (APE(WA%)) were then calculated. RESULTS: Emphysema volume was most accurately measured in IMR-R1 (APE(vol) in low-dose, 0.053 ± 0.002; APE(vol) in standard-dose, 0.047 ± 0.003; all p < 0.001) and AM was the most accurate in IMR-SP1 on both low- and standard-doses CT (APE(WA%) in low-dose, 0.067 ± 0.002; APE(WA%) in standard-dose, 0.06 ± 0.003; all p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the APE(vol) of IMR-R1 between low- and standard-doses (all p > 0.05). VME70 showed a significantly higher APE(vol) than iDose(4), IMR-R1, and IMR-ST1 (all p < 0.004). VME70 also showed a significantly higher APE(WA%) compared with the other algorithms (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: IMR was the most accurate technique for measurement of both EV and airway wall thickness. However, VME70 did not show a significantly better accuracy compared with other algorithms. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6005943 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | The Korean Society of Radiology |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60059432018-07-01 Comparison of Filtered Back Projection, Hybrid Iterative Reconstruction, Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction, and Virtual Monoenergetic Reconstruction Images at Both Low- and Standard-Dose Settings in Measurement of Emphysema Volume and Airway Wall Thickness: A CT Phantom Study Kim, Cherry Lee, Ki Yeol Shin, Chol Kang, Eun-Young Oh, Yu-Whan Ha, Moin Ko, Chang Sub Cha, Jaehyung Korean J Radiol Thoracic Imaging OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of emphysema volume (EV) and airway measurements (AMs) produced by various iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms and virtual monoenergetic images (VME) at both low- and standard-dose settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Computed tomography (CT) images were obtained on phantom at both low- (30 mAs at 120 kVp) and standard-doses (100 mAs at 120 kVp). Each CT scan was reconstructed using filtered back projection, hybrid IR (iDose(4); Philips Healthcare), model-based IR (IMR-R1, IMR-ST1, IMR-SP1; Philips Healthcare), and VME at 70 keV (VME70). The EV of each air column and wall area percentage (WA%) of each airway tube were measured in all algorithms. Absolute percentage measurement errors of EV (APE(vol)) and AM (APE(WA%)) were then calculated. RESULTS: Emphysema volume was most accurately measured in IMR-R1 (APE(vol) in low-dose, 0.053 ± 0.002; APE(vol) in standard-dose, 0.047 ± 0.003; all p < 0.001) and AM was the most accurate in IMR-SP1 on both low- and standard-doses CT (APE(WA%) in low-dose, 0.067 ± 0.002; APE(WA%) in standard-dose, 0.06 ± 0.003; all p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the APE(vol) of IMR-R1 between low- and standard-doses (all p > 0.05). VME70 showed a significantly higher APE(vol) than iDose(4), IMR-R1, and IMR-ST1 (all p < 0.004). VME70 also showed a significantly higher APE(WA%) compared with the other algorithms (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: IMR was the most accurate technique for measurement of both EV and airway wall thickness. However, VME70 did not show a significantly better accuracy compared with other algorithms. The Korean Society of Radiology 2018 2018-06-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6005943/ /pubmed/29962888 http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.19.4.809 Text en Copyright © 2018 The Korean Society of Radiology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Thoracic Imaging Kim, Cherry Lee, Ki Yeol Shin, Chol Kang, Eun-Young Oh, Yu-Whan Ha, Moin Ko, Chang Sub Cha, Jaehyung Comparison of Filtered Back Projection, Hybrid Iterative Reconstruction, Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction, and Virtual Monoenergetic Reconstruction Images at Both Low- and Standard-Dose Settings in Measurement of Emphysema Volume and Airway Wall Thickness: A CT Phantom Study |
title | Comparison of Filtered Back Projection, Hybrid Iterative Reconstruction, Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction, and Virtual Monoenergetic Reconstruction Images at Both Low- and Standard-Dose Settings in Measurement of Emphysema Volume and Airway Wall Thickness: A CT Phantom Study |
title_full | Comparison of Filtered Back Projection, Hybrid Iterative Reconstruction, Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction, and Virtual Monoenergetic Reconstruction Images at Both Low- and Standard-Dose Settings in Measurement of Emphysema Volume and Airway Wall Thickness: A CT Phantom Study |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Filtered Back Projection, Hybrid Iterative Reconstruction, Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction, and Virtual Monoenergetic Reconstruction Images at Both Low- and Standard-Dose Settings in Measurement of Emphysema Volume and Airway Wall Thickness: A CT Phantom Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Filtered Back Projection, Hybrid Iterative Reconstruction, Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction, and Virtual Monoenergetic Reconstruction Images at Both Low- and Standard-Dose Settings in Measurement of Emphysema Volume and Airway Wall Thickness: A CT Phantom Study |
title_short | Comparison of Filtered Back Projection, Hybrid Iterative Reconstruction, Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction, and Virtual Monoenergetic Reconstruction Images at Both Low- and Standard-Dose Settings in Measurement of Emphysema Volume and Airway Wall Thickness: A CT Phantom Study |
title_sort | comparison of filtered back projection, hybrid iterative reconstruction, model-based iterative reconstruction, and virtual monoenergetic reconstruction images at both low- and standard-dose settings in measurement of emphysema volume and airway wall thickness: a ct phantom study |
topic | Thoracic Imaging |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6005943/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29962888 http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.19.4.809 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kimcherry comparisonoffilteredbackprojectionhybriditerativereconstructionmodelbasediterativereconstructionandvirtualmonoenergeticreconstructionimagesatbothlowandstandarddosesettingsinmeasurementofemphysemavolumeandairwaywallthicknessactphantomstudy AT leekiyeol comparisonoffilteredbackprojectionhybriditerativereconstructionmodelbasediterativereconstructionandvirtualmonoenergeticreconstructionimagesatbothlowandstandarddosesettingsinmeasurementofemphysemavolumeandairwaywallthicknessactphantomstudy AT shinchol comparisonoffilteredbackprojectionhybriditerativereconstructionmodelbasediterativereconstructionandvirtualmonoenergeticreconstructionimagesatbothlowandstandarddosesettingsinmeasurementofemphysemavolumeandairwaywallthicknessactphantomstudy AT kangeunyoung comparisonoffilteredbackprojectionhybriditerativereconstructionmodelbasediterativereconstructionandvirtualmonoenergeticreconstructionimagesatbothlowandstandarddosesettingsinmeasurementofemphysemavolumeandairwaywallthicknessactphantomstudy AT ohyuwhan comparisonoffilteredbackprojectionhybriditerativereconstructionmodelbasediterativereconstructionandvirtualmonoenergeticreconstructionimagesatbothlowandstandarddosesettingsinmeasurementofemphysemavolumeandairwaywallthicknessactphantomstudy AT hamoin comparisonoffilteredbackprojectionhybriditerativereconstructionmodelbasediterativereconstructionandvirtualmonoenergeticreconstructionimagesatbothlowandstandarddosesettingsinmeasurementofemphysemavolumeandairwaywallthicknessactphantomstudy AT kochangsub comparisonoffilteredbackprojectionhybriditerativereconstructionmodelbasediterativereconstructionandvirtualmonoenergeticreconstructionimagesatbothlowandstandarddosesettingsinmeasurementofemphysemavolumeandairwaywallthicknessactphantomstudy AT chajaehyung comparisonoffilteredbackprojectionhybriditerativereconstructionmodelbasediterativereconstructionandvirtualmonoenergeticreconstructionimagesatbothlowandstandarddosesettingsinmeasurementofemphysemavolumeandairwaywallthicknessactphantomstudy |