Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제23권4호
  • /
  • Pages.402-412
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Image Quality and Lesion Detectability of Lower-Dose Abdominopelvic CT Obtained Using Deep Learning Image Reconstruction

  • June Park (Department of Radiology, Seoul Medical Center) ;
  • Jaeseung Shin (Department of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • In Kyung Min (Biostatistics Collaboration Unit, Department of Biomedical Systems Informatics, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Heejin Bae (Department of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Yeo-Eun Kim (Department of Radiology, Seoul Medical Center) ;
  • Yong Eun Chung (Department of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2021.07.13
  • 심사 : 2021.10.31
  • 발행 : 2022.04.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: To evaluate the image quality and lesion detectability of lower-dose CT (LDCT) of the abdomen and pelvis obtained using a deep learning image reconstruction (DLIR) algorithm compared with those of standard-dose CT (SDCT) images. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 123 patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 63 ± 11 years; male:female, 70:53) who underwent contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic LDCT between May and August 2020 and had prior SDCT obtained using the same CT scanner within a year. LDCT images were reconstructed with hybrid iterative reconstruction (h-IR) and DLIR at medium and high strengths (DLIR-M and DLIR-H), while SDCT images were reconstructed with h-IR. For quantitative image quality analysis, image noise, signal-to-noise ratio, and contrast-to-noise ratio were measured in the liver, muscle, and aorta. Among the three different LDCT reconstruction algorithms, the one showing the smallest difference in quantitative parameters from those of SDCT images was selected for qualitative image quality analysis and lesion detectability evaluation. For qualitative analysis, overall image quality, image noise, image sharpness, image texture, and lesion conspicuity were graded using a 5-point scale by two radiologists. Observer performance in focal liver lesion detection was evaluated by comparing the jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristic figures-of-merit (FOM). Results: LDCT (35.1% dose reduction compared with SDCT) images obtained using DLIR-M showed similar quantitative measures to those of SDCT with h-IR images. All qualitative parameters of LDCT with DLIR-M images but image texture were similar to or significantly better than those of SDCT with h-IR images. The lesion detectability on LDCT with DLIR-M images was not significantly different from that of SDCT with h-IR images (reader-averaged FOM, 0.887 vs. 0.874, respectively; p = 0.581). Conclusion: Overall image quality and detectability of focal liver lesions is preserved in contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic LDCT obtained with DLIR-M relative to those in SDCT with h-IR.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Huang L, Snyder AR, Morgan WF. Radiation-induced genomic instability and its implications for radiation carcinogenesis. Oncogene 2003;22:5848-5854 
  2. Vaiserman A, Koliada A, Zabuga O, Socol Y. Health impacts of low-dose ionizing radiation: current scientific debates and regulatory issues. Dose Response 2018;16:1559325818796331 
  3. Sodickson A, Baeyens PF, Andriole KP, Prevedello LM, Nawfel RD, Hanson R, et al. Recurrent CT, cumulative radiation exposure, and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from CT of adults. Radiology 2009;251:175-184 
  4. Mullenders L, Atkinson M, Paretzke H, Sabatier L, Bouffler S. Assessing cancer risks of low-dose radiation. Nat Rev Cancer 2009;9:596-604 
  5. National Research Council. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2006:406 
  6. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2277-2284 
  7. Yu L, Liu X, Leng S, Kofler JM, Ramirez-Giraldo JC, Qu M, et al. Radiation dose reduction in computed tomography: techniques and future perspective. Imaging Med 2009;1:65-84 
  8. Solomon J, Marin D, Roy Choudhury K, Patel B, Samei E. Effect of radiation dose reduction and reconstruction algorithm on image noise, contrast, resolution, and detectability of subtle hypoattenuating liver lesions at multidetector CT: filtered back projection versus a commercial model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm. Radiology 2017;284:777-787 
  9. Patino M, Fuentes JM, Singh S, Hahn PF, Sahani DV. Iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominopelvic CT: technical concepts and clinical implementation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;205:W19-W31 
  10. 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 
  11. Sagara Y, Hara AK, Pavlicek W, Silva AC, Paden RG, Wu Q. Abdominal CT: comparison of low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195:713-719 
  12. Lim K, Kwon H, Cho J, Oh J, Yoon S, Kang M, et al. Initial phantom study comparing image quality in computed tomography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and new adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction V. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2015;39:443-448 
  13. Kwon H, Cho J, Oh J, Kim D, Cho J, Kim S, et al. The adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V technique for radiation dose reduction in abdominal CT: comparison with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Br J Radiol 2015;88:20150463 
  14. 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 
  15. Mileto A, Guimaraes LS, McCollough CH, Fletcher JG, Yu L. State of the art in abdominal CT: the limits of iterative reconstruction algorithms. Radiology 2019;293:491-503 
  16. Schindera ST, Odedra D, Raza SA, Kim TK, Jang HJ, Szucs-Farkas Z, et al. Iterative reconstruction algorithm for CT: can radiation dose be decreased while low-contrast detectability is preserved? Radiology 2013;269:511-518 
  17. McCollough CH, Yu L, Kofler JM, Leng S, Zhang Y, Li Z, et al. Degradation of CT low-contrast spatial resolution due to the use of iterative reconstruction and reduced dose levels. Radiology 2015;276:499-506 
  18. Hsieh J, Liu E, Nett B, Tang J, Thibault JB, Sahney S. A new era of image reconstruction: TrueFidelityTM. Technical white paper on deep learning image reconstruction. Milwaukee: GE Healthcare, 2019 
  19. Racine D, Becce F, Viry A, Monnin P, Thomsen B, Verdun FR, et al. Task-based characterization of a deep learning image reconstruction and comparison with filtered back-projection and a partial model-based iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT: a phantom study. Phys Med 2020;76:28-37 
  20. 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 
  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. Noda Y, Iritani Y, Kawai N, Miyoshi T, Ishihara T, Hyodo F, et al. Deep learning image reconstruction for pancreatic low-dose computed tomography: comparison with hybrid iterative reconstruction. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2021;46:4238-4244 
  23. 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 
  24. Cao L, Liu X, Li J, Qu T, Chen L, Cheng Y, et al. A study of using a deep learning image reconstruction to improve the image quality of extremely low-dose contrast-enhanced abdominal CT for patients with hepatic lesions. Br J Radiol 2021;94:20201086 
  25. McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM Jr. CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. Radiographics 2006;26:503-512 
  26. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations. AAPM.org Web site. https://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/RPT_204.pdf. Accessed June 2, 2021 
  27. 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 
  28. Ahn S, Park SH, Lee KH. How to demonstrate similarity by using noninferiority and equivalence statistical testing in radiology research. Radiology 2013;267:328-338 
  29. Nakamura Y, Narita K, Higaki T, Akagi M, Honda Y, Awai K. Diagnostic value of deep learning reconstruction for radiation dose reduction at abdominal ultra-high-resolution CT. Eur Radiol 2021;31:4700-4709 
  30. Akagi M, Nakamura Y, Higaki T, Narita K, Honda Y, Awai K. Deep learning reconstruction of equilibrium phase CT images in obese patients. Eur J Radiol 2020;133:109349 
  31. Chakraborty DP, Berbaum KS. Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation. Med Phys 2004;31:2313-2330 
  32. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 1992;27:723-731 
  33. Brennan RL, Prediger DJ. Coefficient kappa: some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educ Psychol Meas 1981;41:687-699 
  34. 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 
  35. Chen LH, Jin C, Li JY, Wang GL, Jia YJ, Duan HF, et al. Image quality comparison of two adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR, ASiR-V) algorithms and filtered back projection in routine liver CT. Br J Radiol 2018;91:20170655 
  36. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. ICRU report no. 87: radiation dose and image-quality assessment in computed tomography. J ICRU 2012;12:1-149