Abstract
Objectives
The purpose of this study was to compare cranial CT (CCT) image quality (IQ) of the MBIR algorithm with standard iterative reconstruction (ASiR).
Methods
In this institutional review board (IRB)-approved study, raw data sets of 100 unenhanced CCT examinations (120 kV, 50–260 mAs, 20 mm collimation, 0.984 pitch) were reconstructed with both ASiR and MBIR. Signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise (CNR) were calculated from attenuation values measured in caudate nucleus, frontal white matter, anterior ventricle horn, fourth ventricle, and pons. Two radiologists, who were blinded to the reconstruction algorithms, evaluated anonymized multiplanar reformations of 2.5 mm with respect to depiction of different parenchymal structures and impact of artefacts on IQ with a five-point scale (0: unacceptable, 1: less than average, 2: average, 3: above average, 4: excellent).
Results
MBIR decreased artefacts more effectively than ASiR (p < 0.01). The median depiction score for MBIR was 3, whereas the median value for ASiR was 2 (p < 0.01). SNR and CNR were significantly higher in MBIR than ASiR (p < 0.01).
Conclusions
MBIR showed significant improvement of IQ parameters compared to ASiR. As CCT is an examination that is frequently required, the use of MBIR may allow for substantial reduction of radiation exposure caused by medical diagnostics.
Key Points
• Model-Based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) effectively decreased artefacts in cranial CT.
• MBIR reconstructed images were rated with significantly higher scores for image quality.
• Model-Based iterative reconstruction may allow reduced-dose diagnostic examination protocols.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Computed tomography (CT) is an increasingly important tool in diagnostic imaging. Between 1995 and 2007, Larson et al. [1, 2] reported a 16 % annual increase in the number of CT examinations during visits to American and Canadian emergency departments (ED). Cranial CT (CCT), at approximately 40 %, was the most frequent CT examination [1, 2]. The most common and important indications for CCT were headache, head injury, vertigo, and convulsions [1, 2]. For the reporting radiologist, the evaluation of CCT images is a challenging task. Apart from the visualization of the whole cerebrum, cerebellum, and skull base, a critical aspect of CCT imaging is the visually sharp presentation of the grey and white matter of the basal ganglia, the intracranial vessels, the ventricular system, and the cerebrospinal fluid surrounding the mesencephalon and the brain [3]. Streaks and dark bands are common artefacts, especially in the posterior fossa, caused by beam hardening [4, 5]. On one hand, artefacts may superimpose small bleeding or ischemic areas, but on the other, artefacts themselves can be mistaken as pathological findings.
Iterative reconstruction algorithms, which were introduced to improve image quality [6], have been shown to exhibit diagnostic image quality, while dose is reduced in CT examinations [7–10]. In contrast to the commonly used filtered back projection (FBP), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR); GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI) is an image reconstruction technique that models system noise statistics, with gains in image quality compared to noise filtering techniques [8, 9]. ASiR has already been shown to improve image quality in CCT [11], and is valuable in retaining diagnostic image quality in dose-reduced CCT imaging [12, 13].
The model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR, Veo (GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI)) is a further development of the ASiR technology. The reconstruction process considers more information for data modelling (i.e., system optics such as X-ray physics and interactions with the human body) [9, 14]. With regard to the image quality and the potential for dose reduction, MBIR has outperformed ASiR in multiple studies using phantoms and investigating several body regions [15–22].
Although CCT is the examination most frequently required in emergency CT imaging, to date, very few phantom studies have investigated the value of MBIR in CCT imaging [23]. The aim of this prospective patient study was to compare image quality of the MBIR algorithm with standard iterative reconstruction (ASiR) of cranial CT.
Materials and methods
Patient population
The study was approved by the local ethics review board. All patients provided written informed consent before examination. Patients under the age of 18 years and patients suffering multiple severe trauma injuries were excluded from the study. A minimum of 92 cases aimed to acquire statistical significance at p = 0.05. A total of 108 patients were prospectively included, and were examined with clinical indication for cranial CT between January and March 2013. Due to severe motion artefacts, eight cases were excluded from evaluation, leaving 100 patients (52 male, 48 female) who were included in the study.
The underlying cause of accidents were fall (n = 53), beating/assault (n = 14), traffic accident (n = 8), non-defined trauma (n = 11), stroke (n = 5), tumour (n = 3), collapse (n = 2), and other (n = 4). Findings were intracranial bleeding (n = 14), extracranial hematoma (n = 14), fracture (n = 14), infarction (n = 5), and other (n = 4), and 60 patients had no pathological findings. The age of patients ranged from 20 to 91 years, with an average of 54 years. Patient demographics are included in Table 1.
Acquisition of images
All included patients received an unenhanced cranial CT performed on a Discovery CT750 HD unit (GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI). The patients were examined in the supine position, and examined in sequential pitch in craniocaudal direction with tilted gantry to achieve a beam projection parallel to the skull base. The institutional standard protocol included examination parameters of 120 kV peak tube voltage, 50–260 mAs tube current, 20 mm detector collimation, and 0.984 pitch factor, based on recommendations of the European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography [3, 11]. Patient-specific attenuation values in the CT planning scout(s) were matched with tube current values using the standard lookup table provided by the vendor. Additionally, the tube modulation was driven and limited by a so-called noise index (NI), which was set to 50. NI represents the measurement for an image noise threshold and is based on the maximum allowed standard deviation of Hounsfield units in a water phantom [3, 24–26]. Raw data sets with a slice thickness of 0.625 mm were reconstructed using two types of iterative reconstruction algorithms: MBIR and 60 %-weighted ASiR. The ASiR weighting of 60 % indicates a blend of 60 % ASiR and 40 % FBP images. A higher percentage of ASiR weighting results in increased noise reduction but also blurring [11, 12], and the 60 % weighting was chosen to achieve a good balance of noise reduction and image sharpness. MBIR is an iterative reconstruction technique with no blending of FBP images. Multiplanar reformations (MPRs) were performed with an identical slice thickness of 2.5 mm [3, 27, 28]. ASiR reconstructed images were released to the clinical routine. The elapsed time for reconstruction was recorded by the technician. Prior to evaluation, information with respect to the patient or to the reconstruction algorithms used was removed to allow blinded reading.
Evaluation of radiation dose
Dose parameters were recorded in dose-length-product (DLP [mGy × cm]) and volume-weighted computed tomography dose index (CTDIvol, [mGy]). Effective dose [mSv] was calculated from DLP multiplied by a conversion factor (0.0019 mSv/(mGy × cm) as published by Deak et al. [29], and evaluated using ICRP Publication 103 [30]).
Statistical evaluation of image quality
For the evaluation of image quality, mean attenuation values (MAVs) and standard deviation (SD) were measured. Measurements were performed using the Advantage Workstation AW VolumeShare 5 (GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI). Spherical volumes of interest (VOIs) of 5 mm diameter were placed in the images in identical positions in both ASiR and MBIR: in the cerebrospinal fluid of the left anterior horn of the lateral ventricle and in the fourth ventricle, in the grey matter of the left caudate nucleus, in the white matter of the frontal lobe and in the pons, and in the air anterior of the forehead (Fig. 1). If necessary, the VOI diameter was scaled down, with a minimum diameter of 3 mm to avoid partial volume effects. The minimum number of voxels was always above 10. Downscaling of VOI was necessary in 56 of 100 cases. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was calculated from the quotient of mean attenuation value and corresponding standard deviation measured in the VOI [13]. Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) is an indicator for the depiction of different anatomical structures related to differences in signal intensity of an interesting tissue compared to the signal of a reference tissue/structure related to pure image noise [31, 32]. We calculated CNR for the differentiation of grey to white matter and cerebrospinal fluid to white matter, in relation to the measured SD of air [31, 32]. The acquired values of ASiR and MBIR reconstructed image sets were visualized with bar charts and compared with ANOVA to assess statistical significance. Level of significance (α) was set at 0.05.
Evaluation of depiction and impact of artefacts on image quality
Two radiologists (with two and four years of experience in CT imaging), blinded to the reconstruction algorithms, independently evaluated the depiction of anatomical structures and the impact of artefacts on image quality. The anatomical structures were assigned to four groups, as shown in Table 2. The evaluators’ attention was especially focused on the depiction of the subarachnoid space, the grey and white matter differentiation, the basal ganglia, and lobulation of the cerebellum, according to the European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography [3].
The depiction of anatomical structures was graded on a five-point scale, as shown in Table 3a [11]. The same five-point-scale was used for the evaluation of image quality in general, as shown in Table 3b. The results were visualized with bar charts. Statistical significance was assessed with the Mann–Whitney U test. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to analyze the variability of given scores within ASiR and MBIR reconstruction groups, the subgroups of evaluated anatomical structures, and between the evaluators.
Results
The average effective dose of CCT was 0.93 ± 0.13 mSv, according to ICRP 103 [29], with an average DLP of 491.1 mGy × cm. The average reconstruction time was 48.5 ± 5.0 seconds for ASiR and 1,920.2 ± 112.8 seconds (32 ± 1.88 minutes) for MBIR, 39.6-fold longer than ASiR.
Average signal-to-noise ratios calculated for the parenchymal brain tissues were 28.9 % higher (p < 0.01) in MBIR than in ASiR reconstructed images (Table 4 and Fig. 2a). However, the signal-to-noise ratios calculated for the ventricular system showed no significant difference (ASiR, 1.18; MBIR, 1.10; p = 0.2) between the image reconstructions.
Contrast-to-noise ratio was significantly higher (37.29 % average difference, p < 0.01) in MBIR than in ASiR reconstructed images (Table 5 and Fig. 2b).
In the qualitative assessment of the depiction of anatomical structures, MBIR was evaluated with significantly better scores than ASiR (median score for MBIR, 3; median score for ASiR, 2; p < 0.01; Table 6 and Fig. 3a). In terms of the general image quality, MBIR showed significantly higher scores than ASiR (median score for MBIR, 2; median score for ASiR, 1; p < 0.01; Table 7 and Fig. 3b).
An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.973 revealed a very high concordance between the two observers. ICC for all subgroups, CSF group, GWD group, BC group, and CB group were 0.50, 0.48, 0.37, 0.51, and 0.54, respectively, revealing a fair to moderate agreement among the groups.
Discussion
Reliable diagnosis is important for the clinical management of diseases and injuries of the central nervous system. Diagnostic image quality, including the sharp visual reproduction of anatomical structures, plays a major role in cranial CT imaging [3].
This prospective study compared the image quality of CCT reconstructed with ASiR and the new MBIR algorithm, and revealed a high potential for MBIR in the improvement of image quality.
Significantly higher scores for the depiction of anatomical structures (median 3.0, indicating “above average”) and significantly higher values for contrast-to-noise ratio for MBIR suggest that MBIR is superior to ASiR in terms of depiction and sharp reproduction of anatomical structures. The better quality of reconstructed images associated with MBIR versus ASiR was confirmed by significantly higher signal-to-noise ratios calculated for parenchymal structures. Low and equal signal-to-noise ratios calculated for the cerebrospinal fluid in both ASiR and MBIR may be explained by higher values for standard deviation caused by smaller VOIs, adjusted to narrow ventricles in 53 of 100 cases, and low mean attenuation values for fluid near 0 (MAV [HU]: ASiR 2.37, MBIR 3.11) and equal standard deviation (SD: ASiR 0.74, MBIR 0.69), resulting in low values for SNR.
The results of this patient study were concordant with those of prior studies, in which MBIR showed more efficient reduction of artefacts in phantom models [33, 34]. In MBIR reconstructed images where the evaluators assigned lower artefact scores, streaks and dark bands were diminished (Figs. 3b and 4b). The reason diminished beam hardening effects with MBIR may be explained by the consideration of the X-ray behaviour in human models [33, 35, 36]. False absorption values are eliminated during the iterative calculations of the MBIR algorithm, which accounts for X-ray physics compared to ASiR [30, 36, 37].
A reconstruction time of 32 minutes for MBIR (39.6-fold longer than for ASiR) indicates that MBIR is not yet an appropriate algorithm in emergency settings, and therefore developers should focus on speeding up the reconstruction process.
The diagnostic accuracy for the detection of pathological findings such as bleeding, infarction, or fractures could not be evaluated in this study. Further studies to assess the diagnostic accuracy of iterative reconstructed CCT imaging will be needed, including a higher number of cases and comparison with a gold standard such as magnetic resonance imaging of the head.
This study was limited to iterative reconstruction algorithms specific for CT machines manufactured by General Electric (GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI). However, the iterative reconstruction technique is available for other CT machines and from other vendors. Six different iterative reconstruction algorithms have already been quantitatively evaluated in a phantom model by Löve et al. [23]. To investigate whether those results are transferable to humans and to compare the impact of iterative reconstruction algorithms of different vendors on image quality in cranial CT, further studies, including patient trials and qualitative assessment, are needed.
In summary, MBIR was shown to be superior to ASiR in terms of reduction of artefacts and consistent diagnostic image quality. The effective reduction of artefacts with MBIR may be particularly helpful for radiologists in order to avoid missing small lesions close to streaks and dark bands or mistaking artefacts for lesions. Furthermore, the improvement of the image quality may allow reduced-dose diagnostic examination protocols. As CCT is the method most often utilized in CT imaging, this may contribute to greater protection of the population from increasing radiation risk associated with medical applications [38, 39]. To achieve faster workflow with the implementation of these protocols, manufacturers must develop faster processing of the iterative calculations and increased computer performance. With these technical improvements, MBIR would appear to be a promising technique to for replace both ASiR and FBP in clinical routine and to allow for reduced-dose examination protocols.
References
Larson DB et al (2011) National trends in CT use in the emergency department: 1995–2007. Radiology 258:164–173
Berdahl CT et al (2013) Emergency department computed tomography utilization in the United States and Canada. Ann Emerg Med
European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography. Report EUR 16262 EN, 2000
Barett JF, Keat N (2004) Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. RadioGraphics 24:1679–1691
Van Gompel G et al (2011) Iterative correction of beam hardening artifacts in CT. Med Phys 38:S36
Willemink MJ et al (2013) Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography Part 1: technical principles. Eur Radiol 23:1623–1631
Yamada Y et al (2012) Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for ultralow-dose computed tomography of the lung. Investig Radiol 47:482–489
Silva AC et al (2010) Innovations in CT dose reduction strategy: application of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:191–199
Fleischmann D, Boas FE (2011) Computed tomography—old ideas and new technology. Eur Radiol 21:510–517
Neroladaki A et al (2013) Computed tomography of the chest with model-based iterative reconstruction using a radiation exposure similar to chest X-ray examination: preliminary observations. Eur Radiol 23:360–366
Rapalino O et al (2012) Cranial CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: improved image quality with concomitant radiation dose reduction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33:609–615
Kilic K et al (2011) Lowering the dose in head CT using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 32:1578–1582
Wu TH et al (2013) How far can the radiation dose be lowered in head CT with iterative reconstruction? Analysis of imaging quality and diagnostic accuracy. Eur Radiol 23:2612–2621
Yadava G et al (2010) Dose reduction and image quality benefits using model based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) technique for computed tomography. Med Phys 37:3372
Deak Z et al (2013) Filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and a model-based iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT: an experimental clinical study. Radiology 266:197–206
Vardhanabhuti V et al (2013) Comparison of image quality between filtered back-projection and the adaptive statistical and novel model-based iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominal CT for renal calculi. Insights Imaging 4:661–669
Ichikawa Y et al (2013) CT of the chest with model-based, fully iterative reconstruction: comparison with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. BMC Med Imaging 13
Volders D et al (2013) Model-based iterative reconstruction and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominal CT: comparison of image quality in the detection of colorectal liver metastases. Radiology 11
Yasaka K et al (2013) Model-based iterative reconstruction for reduction of radiation dose in abdominopelvic CT: comparison to adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. SpringerPlus 2
Machida H et al (2013) Improved delineation of the anterior spinal artery with model-based iterative reconstruction in CT angiography: a clinical pilot study. Am J Roentgenol 200:442–446
Choo JY et al (2014) Quantitative analysis of emphysema and airway measurements according to iterative reconstruction algorithms: comparison of filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and model-based iterative reconstruction. Eur Radiol 24:799–806
Katsura M et al (2012) Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: comparison with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Eur Radiol 22:1613–1623
Love A et al (2013) Six iterative reconstruction algorithms in brain CT: a phantom study on image quality at different radiation dose levels. Br J Radiol 86:20130388
Shen J et al (2013) Noise-based tube current reduction method with iterative reconstruction for reduction of radiation exposure in coronary CT angiography. Eur J Radiol 82:349–355
McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM (2006) CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. RadioGraphics 26:503–512
Kanal KM et al (2007) Impact of operator-selected image noise index and reconstruction slice thickness on patient radiation dose in 64-MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:219–225
Jones TR et al (2001) Single- versus multi-detector row CT of the brain: quality assessment. Radiology 219:750–755
Prabhakar R et al (2007) Comparison of computed tomography and magnetic resonance based target volume in brain tumors. J Cancer Res Ther 3:121–123
Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA (2010) Multisection CT protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology 257:158–166
ICRP (2007) The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP 37
Wintersperger B et al (2005) Aorto-iliac multidetector-row CT angiography with low kV settings: improved vessel enhancement and simultaneous reduction of radiation dose. Eur Radiol 15:334–341
Magnotta VA, Friedman L (2006) Measurement of signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise in the fBIRN multicenter imaging study. J Digit Imaging 19:140–147
Thibault J et al (2007) A three-dimensional statistical approach to improved image quality for multislice helical CT. Med Phys 34:4526–4544
Yu Z et al (2011) Fast model-based X-ray CT reconstruction using spatially nonhomogeneous ICD optimization. IEEE Trans Image Process 20:161–175
Nelson RC, Feuerlein S, Boll DT (2011) New iterative reconstruction techniques for cardiovascular computed tomography: how do they work, and what are the advantages and disadvantages? J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 5:286–292
Thibault J (2011) The model-based paradigm: a new frontier in image reconstruction. GE Healthcare CT Publication
Beister M, Kolditz D, Kalender WA (2012) Iterative reconstruction methods in X-ray CT. Phys Med 28:94–108
Borrás C, P.A.H.O.Y.U.N.E.P.W.H. Organization (1997) Organization, development, quality assurance, and radiation protection in radiology services: imaging and radiation therapy. Pan American Health Organization, World Health Organization, Washington, D.C
Tsushima Y et al (2010) Radiation exposure from CT examinations in Japan. BMC Med Imaging 10:24
Acknowledgments
We thank Mr. P. Deak and Ms. K. Herrmann for their kind support. This study was sponsored by GE Healthcare as a part of a scientific institutional grant. The scientific guarantor of this publication is Mr. Stefan Wirth, MD. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. Study subjects or cohorts have not been previously reported. Methodology: prospective non-randomised controlled trial, performed at one institution.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Notohamiprodjo, S., Deak, Z., Meurer, F. et al. Image quality of iterative reconstruction in cranial CT imaging: comparison of model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR). Eur Radiol 25, 140–146 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3374-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3374-8