Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 10, pp 3350–3358 | Cite as

Reducing radiation dose for multi-phase contrast-enhanced dual energy renal CT: pilot study evaluating prior iterative reconstruction

  • Patrick J. Navin
  • Bohyun Kim
  • Michael L. Wells
  • Ashish Khandelwal
  • Ahmed F. Halaweish
  • Taylor R. Moen
  • Matthew P. Johnson
  • Shannon McCollough
  • Yong Suk Lee
  • Shuai Leng
  • Cynthia H. McCollough
  • Joel G. FletcherEmail author
Technical
  • 58 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Prior iterative reconstruction (PIR) uses spatial information from one phase of enhancement to reduce image noise in other phases. We sought to determine if PIR could reduce radiation dose while preserving observer performance and CT number at multi-phase dual energy (DE) renal CT.

Methods

CT projection data from multi-phase DE renal CT examinations were collected. Images corresponding to 40% radiation dose were reconstructed using validated noise insertion and PIR. Three genitourinary radiologists examined routine and 40% dose PIR images. Probability of malignancy was assessed [from 0 to 100] with malignancy assumed at probability ≥ 75. Observer performance was compared on a per patient and per lesion level. CT number accuracy was measured.

Results

Twenty-three patients had 49 renal lesions (11 solid renal neoplasms). CT number was nearly identical between techniques (mean CT number difference: unenhanced 2 ± 2 HU; enhanced 4 ± 4 HU). AUC for malignancy was similar between multi-phase routine dose DE and lower dose PIR images [per patient: 0.950 vs. 0.916 (p = 0.356); per lesion: 0.931 vs. 0.884 (p = 0.304)]. Per patient sensitivity was also similar (78% routine dose vs. 82% lower dose [p ≥ 0.99]), as was specificity (91% routine dose vs. 93% lower dose PIR [p > 0.99]), with similar findings on a per lesion level. Subjective image quality was also similar (p = 0.34).

Conclusions

Prior iterative reconstruction is a new reconstruction method for multi-phase CT examinations that promises to facilitate radiation dose reduction by over 50% for multi-phase DE renal CT exams without compromising CT number or observer performance.

Keywords

Iterative reconstruction Renal neoplasms Radiation dosage Computed tomography, x-ray 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors wish to express appreciation to Kris Nunez for her assistance in preparation of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded in part by a research grant to the author’s institution from Siemens Healthineers.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Dr. Halaweish is an employee of Siemens Healthineers. Drs. McCollough and Fletcher receive grant support to their institution from Siemens Healthineers, which provided the offline computer workstation and prior iterative reconstruction software examined in this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Fletcher JG, Yu L, Fidler JL, Levin DL, DeLone DR, Hough DM, Takahashi N, Venkatesh SK, Sykes AG, White D, Lindell RM, Kotsenas AL, Campeau NG, Lehman VT, Bartley AC, Leng S, Holmes DR, 3rd, Toledano AY, Carter RE, McCollough CH (2017) Estimation of Observer Performance for Reduced Radiation Dose Levels in CT: Eliminating Reduced Dose Levels That Are Too Low Is the First Step. Acad Radiol 24 (7):876-890.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marin D, Boll DT, Mileto A, Nelson RC (2014) State of the art: dual-energy CT of the abdomen. Radiology 271 (2):327-342.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mileto A, Marin D, Alfaro-Cordoba M, Ramirez-Giraldo JC, Eusemann CD, Scribano E, Blandino A, Mazziotti S, Ascenti G (2014) Iodine quantification to distinguish clear cell from papillary renal cell carcinoma at dual-energy multidetector CT: a multireader diagnostic performance study. Radiology 273 (3):813-820.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Primak AN, Fletcher JG, Vrtiska TJ, Dzyubak OP, Lieske JC, Jackson ME, Williams JC, Jr., McCollough CH (2007) Noninvasive differentiation of uric acid versus non-uric acid kidney stones using dual-energy CT. Acad Radiol 14 (12):1441-1447.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vrtiska TJ, Takahashi N, Fletcher JG, Hartman RP, Yu L, Kawashima A (2010) Genitourinary applications of dual-energy CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194 (6):1434-1442.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bellini D, Panvini N, Laghi A, Marin D, Patel BN, Wang CL, Carbone I, Mileto A (2019) Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Investigating the Diagnostic Yield of Dual-Energy CT for Renal Mass Assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol:1-10.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Salameh JP, McInnes MDF, McGrath TA, Salameh G, Schieda N (2019) Diagnostic Accuracy of Dual-Energy CT for Evaluation of Renal Masses: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 212 (4):W100-W105.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mileto A, Allen BC, Pietryga JA, Farjat AE, Zarzour JG, Bellini D, Ebner L, Morgan DE (2017) Characterization of Incidental Renal Mass With Dual-Energy CT: Diagnostic Accuracy of Effective Atomic Number Maps for Discriminating Nonenhancing Cysts From Enhancing Masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 209 (4):W221-W230.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grajo JR, Sahani DV (2018) Dual-Energy CT of the Abdomen and Pelvis: Radiation Dose Considerations. J Am Coll Radiol 15 (8):1128-1132.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Henzler T, Fink C, Schoenberg SO, Schoepf UJ (2012) Dual-energy CT: radiation dose aspects. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199 (5 Suppl):S16-25.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ho LM, Yoshizumi TT, Hurwitz LM, Nelson RC, Marin D, Toncheva G, Schindera ST (2009) Dual energy versus single energy MDCT: measurement of radiation dose using adult abdominal imaging protocols. Acad Radiol 16 (11):1400-1407.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bruder H, Raupach R, Sunnegardh J, Allmendinger T, Klotz E, Stierstorfer K, Flohr T (2015) Novel iterative reconstruction method with optimal dose usage for partially redundant CT-acquisition. Phys Med Biol 60 (21):8567-8582.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yu L, Shiung M, Jondal D, McCollough CH (2012) Development and validation of a practical lower-dose-simulation tool for optimizing computed tomography scan protocols. J Comput Assist Tomogr 36 (4):477-487.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Randolph JJ Free-Marginal Multirater Kappa (multirater κfree): An Alternative to Fleiss’ FixedMarginal Multirater Kappa. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.59.8776&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  15. 15.
    Kataria B, Smedby O (2013) Patient dose and image quality in low-dose abdominal CT: a comparison between iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection. Acta Radiol 54 (5):540-548.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kataria B, Althen JN, Smedby O, Persson A, Sokjer H, Sandborg M (2018) Assessment of image quality in abdominal CT: potential dose reduction with model-based iterative reconstruction. Eur Radiol 28 (6):2464-2473.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smedby O, Fredrikson M, De Geer J, Borgen L, Sandborg M (2013) Quantifying the potential for dose reduction with visual grading regression. Br J Radiol 86 (1021):31197714.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fletcher JG, Krueger WR, Hough DM, Huprich JE, Fidler JL, Wang J, Shiung MM, Harmsen WS, Grant KL, McCollough CH (2013) Pilot study of detection, radiologist confidence and image quality with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction at half-routine dose level. J Comput Assist Tomogr 37 (2):203-211.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pickhardt PJ, Lubner MG, Kim DH, Tang J, Ruma JA, del Rio AM, Chen GH (2012) Abdominal CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199 (6):1266-1274.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baker ME, Dong F, Primak A, Obuchowski NA, Einstein D, Gandhi N, Herts BR, Purysko A, Remer E, Vachhani N (2012) Contrast-to-noise ratio and low-contrast object resolution on full- and low-dose MDCT: SAFIRE versus filtered back projection in a low-contrast object phantom and in the liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199 (1):8-18.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goenka AH, Herts BR, Obuchowski NA, Primak AN, Dong F, Karim W, Baker ME (2014) Effect of reduced radiation exposure and iterative reconstruction on detection of low-contrast low-attenuation lesions in an anthropomorphic liver phantom: an 18-reader study. Radiology 272 (1):154-163.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Willemink MJ, de Jong PA, Leiner T, de Heer LM, Nievelstein RA, Budde RP, Schilham AM (2013) Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography Part 1: technical principles. Eur Radiol 23 (6):1623-1631.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Singh S, Kalra MK, Gilman MD, Hsieh J, Pien HH, Digumarthy SR, Shepard JA (2011) Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: a pilot study. Radiology 259 (2):565-573.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yamada Y, Jinzaki M, Tanami Y, Shiomi E, Sugiura H, Abe T, Kuribayashi S (2012) Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for ultralow-dose computed tomography of the lung: a pilot study. Invest Radiol 47 (8):482-489.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pontana F, Duhamel A, Pagniez J, Flohr T, Faivre JB, Hachulla AL, Remy J, Remy-Jardin M (2011) Chest computed tomography using iterative reconstruction vs filtered back projection (Part 2): image quality of low-dose CT examinations in 80 patients. Eur Radiol 21 (3):636-643.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kalra MK, Woisetschlager M, Dahlstrom N, Singh S, Digumarthy S, Do S, Pien H, Quick P, Schmidt B, Sedlmair M, Shepard JA, Persson A (2013) Sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction of low-dose chest CT: effect on image quality and radiation dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201 (2):W235-244.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Flicek KT, Hara AK, Silva AC, Wu Q, Peter MB, Johnson CD (2010) Reducing the radiation dose for CT colonography using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: A pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195 (1):126-131.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ehman EC, Yu L, Manduca A, Hara AK, Shiung MM, Jondal D, Lake DS, Paden RG, Blezek DJ, Bruesewitz MR, McCollough CH, Hough DM, Fletcher JG (2014) Methods for clinical evaluation of noise reduction techniques in abdominopelvic CT. Radiographics 34 (4):849-862.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jensen K, Andersen HK, Tingberg A, Reisse C, Fosse E, Martinsen AC (2016) Improved Liver Lesion Conspicuity With Iterative Reconstruction in Computed Tomography Imaging. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 45 (5):291-296.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Solomon J, Marin D, Roy Choudhury K, Patel B, Samei E (2017) 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 284 (3):777-787.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schindera ST, Odedra D, Raza SA, Kim TK, Jang HJ, Szucs-Farkas Z, Rogalla P (2013) Iterative reconstruction algorithm for CT: can radiation dose be decreased while low-contrast detectability is preserved? Radiology 269 (2):511-518.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Siemens HealthineersMalvernUSA
  3. 3.Department of Health Sciences ResearchMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations