Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of a Deep Learning-Based Reconstruction Algorithm with Filtered Back Projection and Iterative Reconstruction Algorithms for Pediatric Abdominopelvic CT

  • Wookon Son (Department of Radiology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital) ;
  • MinWoo Kim (School of Biomedical Convergence Engineering, Pusan National University) ;
  • Jae-Yeon Hwang (Department of Radiology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital) ;
  • Young-Woo Kim (Department of Radiology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital) ;
  • Chankue Park (Department of Radiology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital) ;
  • Ki Seok Choo (Department of Radiology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital) ;
  • Tae Un Kim (Department of Radiology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital) ;
  • Joo Yeon Jang (Department of Radiology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital)
  • Received : 2021.06.10
  • Accepted : 2022.03.29
  • Published : 2022.07.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To compare a deep learning-based reconstruction (DLR) algorithm for pediatric abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) with filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms. Materials and Methods: Post-contrast abdominopelvic CT scans obtained from 120 pediatric patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 8.7 ± 5.2 years; 60 males) between May 2020 and October 2020 were evaluated in this retrospective study. Images were reconstructed using FBP, a hybrid IR algorithm (ASiR-V) with blending factors of 50% and 100% (AV50 and AV100, respectively), and a DLR algorithm (TrueFidelity) with three strength levels (low, medium, and high). Noise power spectrum (NPS) and edge rise distance (ERD) were used to evaluate noise characteristics and spatial resolution, respectively. Image noise, edge definition, overall image quality, lesion detectability and conspicuity, and artifacts were qualitatively scored by two pediatric radiologists, and the scores of the two reviewers were averaged. A repeated-measures analysis of variance followed by the Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to compare NPS and ERD among the six reconstruction methods. The Friedman rank sum test followed by the Nemenyi-Wilcoxon-Wilcox all-pairs test was used to compare the results of the qualitative visual analysis among the six reconstruction methods. Results: The NPS noise magnitude of AV100 was significantly lower than that of the DLR, whereas the NPS peak of AV100 was significantly higher than that of the high- and medium-strength DLR (p < 0.001). The NPS average spatial frequencies were higher for DLR than for ASiR-V (p < 0.001). ERD was shorter with DLR than with ASiR-V and FBP (p < 0.001). Qualitative visual analysis revealed better overall image quality with high-strength DLR than with ASiR-V (p < 0.001). Conclusion: For pediatric abdominopelvic CT, the DLR algorithm may provide improved noise characteristics and better spatial resolution than the hybrid IR algorithm.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Special thanks to Jihwan Kim, Kun Hee Kim and Woo seok Choi for assistance in data curation.

References

  1. Brody AS, Frush DP, Huda W, Brent RL; American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Radiology. Radiation risk to children from computed tomography. Pediatrics 2007;120:677-682 
  2. Ehman EC, Yu L, Manduca A, Hara AK, Shiung MM, Jondal D, et al. Methods for clinical evaluation of noise reduction techniques in abdominopelvic CT. Radiographics 2014;34:849-862 
  3. Geyer LL, Schoepf UJ, Meinel FG, Nance JW Jr, Bastarrika G, Leipsic JA, et al. State of the art: iterative CT reconstruction techniques. Radiology 2015;276:339-357 
  4. Singh S, Kalra MK, Hsieh J, Licato PE, Do S, Pien HH, et al. Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 2010;257:373-383 
  5. Smith EA, Dillman JR, Goodsitt MM, Christodoulou EG, Keshavarzi N, Strouse PJ. Model-based iterative reconstruction: effect on patient radiation dose and image quality in pediatric body CT. Radiology 2014;270:526-534 
  6. Willemink MJ, Noel PB. The evolution of image reconstruction for CT-from filtered back projection to artificial intelligence. Eur Radiol 2019;29:2185-2195 
  7. Solomon J, Samei E. Quantum noise properties of CT images with anatomical textured backgrounds across reconstruction algorithms: FBP and SAFIRE. Med Phys 2014;41:091908 
  8. Hong JH, Park EA, Lee W, Ahn C, Kim JH. Incremental image noise reduction in coronary CT angiography using a deep learning-based technique with iterative reconstruction. Korean J Radiol 2020;21:1165-1177 
  9. Kim JH, Yoon HJ, Lee E, Kim I, Cha YK, Bak SH. Validation of deep-learning image reconstruction for low-dose chest computed tomography scan: emphasis on image quality and noise. Korean J Radiol 2021;22:131-138 
  10. Brady SL, Trout AT, Somasundaram E, Anton CG, Li Y, Dillman JR. Improving image quality and reducing radiation dose for pediatric CT by using deep learning reconstruction. Radiology 2021;298:180-188 
  11. Park C, Choo KS, Jung Y, Jeong HS, Hwang JY, Yun MS. CT iterative vs deep learning reconstruction: comparison of noise and sharpness. Eur Radiol 2021;31:3156-3164 
  12. Shin YJ, Chang W, Ye JC, Kang E, Oh DY, Lee YJ, et al. Low-dose abdominal CT using a deep learning-based denoising algorithm: a comparison with CT reconstructed with filtered back projection or iterative reconstruction algorithm. Korean J Radiol 2020;21:356-364 
  13. Tatsugami F, Higaki T, Nakamura Y, Yu Z, Zhou J, Lu Y, et al. Deep learning-based image restoration algorithm for coronary CT angiography. Eur Radiol 2019;29:5322-5329 
  14. Anam C, Haryanto F, Widita R, Arif I, Dougherty G. Automated calculation of water-equivalent diameter (DW) based on AAPM Task Group 220. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2016;17:320-333 
  15. Smith SW. The scientist and engineer's guide to digital signal processing. San Diego: California Technical Pub, 1997 
  16. Nam JG, Hong JH, Kim DS, Oh J, Goo JM. Deep learning reconstruction for contrast-enhanced CT of the upper abdomen: similar image quality with lower radiation dose in direct comparison with iterative reconstruction. Eur Radiol 2021;31:5533-5543 
  17. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-174 
  18. Gonzalez RC, Woods RE. Digital image processing, 4th ed. London: Pearson, 2018:272-295 
  19. Tatsugami F, Higaki T, Sakane H, Fukumoto W, Kaichi Y, Iida M, et al. Coronary artery stent evaluation with model-based iterative reconstruction at coronary CT angiography. Acad Radiol 2017;24:975-981 
  20. Suzuki S, Machida H, Tanaka I, Ueno E. Vascular diameter measurement in CT angiography: comparison of model-based iterative reconstruction and standard filtered back projection algorithms in vitro. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200:652-657 
  21. Jensen CT, Liu X, Tamm EP, Chandler AG, Sun J, Morani AC, et al. Image quality assessment of abdominal CT by use of new deep learning image reconstruction: initial experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020;215:50-57 
  22. Solomon J, Lyu P, Marin D, Samei E. Noise and spatial resolution properties of a commercially available deep learning-based CT reconstruction algorithm. Med Phys 2020;47:3961-3971 
  23. Greffier J, Hamard A, Pereira F, Barrau C, Pasquier H, Beregi JP, et al. Image quality and dose reduction opportunity of deep learning image reconstruction algorithm for CT: a phantom study. Eur Radiol 2020;30:3951-3959 
  24. Higaki T, Nakamura Y, Zhou J, Yu Z, Nemoto T, Tatsugami F, et al. Deep learning reconstruction at CT: phantom study of the image characteristics. Acad Radiol 2020;27:82-87 
  25. Yu L, Vrieze TJ, Leng S, Fletcher JG, McCollough CH. Technical note: measuring contrast- and noise-dependent spatial resolution of an iterative reconstruction method in CT using ensemble averaging. Med Phys 2015;42:2261-2267