TY - JOUR
T1 - 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
T2 - A CT phantom study
AU - Kim, Cherry
AU - Lee, Ki Yeol
AU - Shin, Chol
AU - Kang, Eun Young
AU - Oh, Yu Whan
AU - Ha, Moin
AU - Ko, Chang Sub
AU - Cha, Jaehyung
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIP) (NRF-2016R1A2B4012155). This study was supported by Dong-Kook Pharmaceutical (Q1524331), and Reyon Pharmaceutical and Philips Company (I0902491). This study was supported by a Research Grant from Korea University (K1518111, L1600241, K1722091).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 The Korean Society of Radiology.
PY - 2018/7/1
Y1 - 2018/7/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Airway wall thickness
KW - Computed tomography
KW - Emphysema volume
KW - Model-based iterative reconstruction
KW - Virtual monoenergetic image
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048622660&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3348/kjr.2018.19.4.809
DO - 10.3348/kjr.2018.19.4.809
M3 - Article
C2 - 29962888
AN - SCOPUS:85048622660
SN - 1229-6929
VL - 19
SP - 809
EP - 817
JO - Korean Journal of Radiology
JF - Korean Journal of Radiology
IS - 4
ER -