medric medric
[닫기]
잠시만 기다려 주세요. 로딩중입니다.

Application of Vendor-Neutral Iterative Reconstruction Technique to Pediatric Abdominal Computed Tomography

Korean Journal of Radiology 2019년 20권 9호 p.1358 ~ 1367
 ( Lim Woo-Hyeon ) - Seoul National University Hospital Department of Radiology

 ( Choi Young-Hun ) - Seoul National University Hospital Department of Radiology
 ( Park Ji-Eun ) - Seoul National University Hospital Department of Radiology
 ( Cho Yeon-Jin ) - Seoul National University Hospital Department of Radiology
 ( Lee Seung-Hyun ) - Seoul National University Hospital Department of Radiology
 ( Cheon Jung-Eun ) - Seoul National University Hospital Department of Radiology
 ( Kim Woo-Sun ) - Seoul National University Hospital Department of Radiology
 ( Kim In-One ) - Seoul National University Hospital Department of Radiology
 ( Kim Jong-Hyo ) - Seoul National University College of Medicine Department of Radiology

Abstract


Objective: To compare image qualities between vendor-neutral and vendor-specific hybrid iterative reconstruction (IR) techniques for abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) in young patients.

Materials and Methods: In phantom study, we used an anthropomorphic pediatric phantom, age-equivalent to 5-year-old, and reconstructed CT data using traditional filtered back projection (FBP), vendor-specific and vendor-neutral IR techniques (ClariCT; ClariPI) in various radiation doses. Noise, low-contrast detectability and subjective spatial resolution were compared between FBP, vendor-specific (i.e., iDose1 to 5; Philips Healthcare), and vendor-neutral (i.e., ClariCT1 to 5) IR techniques in phantom. In 43 patients (median, 14 years; age range 1?19 years), noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and qualitative image quality scores of abdominopelvic CT were compared between FBP, iDose level 4 (iDose4), and ClariCT level 2 (ClariCT2), which showed most similar image quality to clinically used vendor-specific IR images (i.e., iDose4) in phantom study. Noise, CNR, and qualitative imaging scores were compared using one-way repeated measure analysis of variance.

Results: In phantom study, ClariCT2 showed noise level similar to iDose4 (14.68?7.66 Hounsfield unit [HU] vs. 14.78?6.99 HU at CT dose index volume range of 0.8?3.8 mGy). Subjective low-contrast detectability and spatial resolution were similar between ClariCT2 and iDose4. In clinical study, ClariCT2 was equivalent to iDose4 for noise (14.26?17.33 vs. 16.01?18.90) and CNR (3.55?5.24 vs. 3.20?4.60) (p > 0.05). For qualitative imaging scores, the overall image quality ([reader 1, reader 2]; 2.74 vs. 2.07, 3.02 vs. 2.28) and noise (2.88 vs. 2.23, 2.93 vs. 2.33) of ClariCT2 were superior to those of FBP (p < 0.05), and not different from those of iDose4 (2.74 vs. 2.72, 3.02 vs. 2.98; 2.88 vs. 2.77, 2.93 vs. 2.86) (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: Vendor-neutral IR technique shows image quality similar to that of clinically used vendor-specific hybrid IR technique for abdominopelvic CT in young patients.

키워드

Iterative reconstruction; Pediatric; Computed tomography; Abdomen; Vendor-neutral; Phantom
원문 및 링크아웃 정보
   
등재저널 정보
SCI(E)
MEDLINE
KCI
KoreaMed
KAMS