Comparison of Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction, Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction, and Filtered Back Projection for Detecting Hepatic Metastases on Submillisievert Low-Dose Computed Tomography
The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic performance of model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR), and filtered back projection (FBP) on submillisievert low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for detecting hepatic metastases. Thirty-eigh...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of computer assisted tomography 2017-07, Vol.41 (4), p.644-650 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 650 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 644 |
| container_title | Journal of computer assisted tomography |
| container_volume | 41 |
| creator | Son, Jung Hee Kim, Seung Ho Yoon, Jung-Hee Lee, Yedaun Lim, Yun-Jung Kim, Seon-Jeong |
| description | The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic performance of model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR), and filtered back projection (FBP) on submillisievert low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for detecting hepatic metastases.
Thirty-eight patients having hepatic metastases underwent abdomen CT. Computed tomography protocol consisted of routine standard-dose portal venous phase scan (120 kVp) and 90-second delayed low-dose scan (80 kVp). The LDCT images were reconstructed with FBP, ASIR, and MBIR, respectively. Two readers recorded the number of hepatic metastases on each image set.
A total of 105 metastatic lesions were analyzed. For reader 1, sensitivity for detecting metastases was stationary between FBP (49%) and ASIR (52%, P = 0.0697); however, sensitivity increased in MBIR (66%, P = 0.0035). For reader 2, it was stationary for all the following sets: FBP (65%), ASIR (68%), and MBIR (67%, P > 0.05).
The MBIR and ASIR showed a limited sensitivity for detecting hepatic metastases in submillisievert LDCT. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000577 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>pubmed_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1097_RCT_0000000000000577</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>28099224</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-88649dede30589501d3f06c416dc5007bdd313bc7fefa01936c3200d999e8e303</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UdtKAzEQDaJovfyBSD7A1clmb3nUVm2homh9XtJkVqPbzZKkin_pJ5l6Q3xwGBiGc2GGQ8g-gyMGojy-Gc6O4HflZblGBiznacJZlq-TAfCCJ1XJ8i2y7f0jACs5zzbJVlqBEGmaDcjb0C566Yy3HbUNvbQa2-RUetR0EtDJYJ6R3qCynQ9uqYKx3SE90bL_AG5DJPhglGz_octO03PTRjy6nkr1RK-dfcQPlDbW0RGG1dbd0zH20UPRSwzSx0ZPI-d2OV-YtjXe4DO6QKf2JRlZj3R1_DJE15ld2Hsn-4fXXbLRyNbj3tfcIXfnZ7PhOJleXUyGJ9NE8QxCUlVFJjRq5JBXIgemeQOFylihVQ5QzrXmjM9V2WAjgQleKJ4CaCEEVlHEd0j26auc9d5hU_fOLKR7rRnUq4DqGFD9N6AoO_iU9fEn1D-i70T4O-PqkUE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction, Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction, and Filtered Back Projection for Detecting Hepatic Metastases on Submillisievert Low-Dose Computed Tomography</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Son, Jung Hee ; Kim, Seung Ho ; Yoon, Jung-Hee ; Lee, Yedaun ; Lim, Yun-Jung ; Kim, Seon-Jeong</creator><creatorcontrib>Son, Jung Hee ; Kim, Seung Ho ; Yoon, Jung-Hee ; Lee, Yedaun ; Lim, Yun-Jung ; Kim, Seon-Jeong</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic performance of model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR), and filtered back projection (FBP) on submillisievert low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for detecting hepatic metastases.
Thirty-eight patients having hepatic metastases underwent abdomen CT. Computed tomography protocol consisted of routine standard-dose portal venous phase scan (120 kVp) and 90-second delayed low-dose scan (80 kVp). The LDCT images were reconstructed with FBP, ASIR, and MBIR, respectively. Two readers recorded the number of hepatic metastases on each image set.
A total of 105 metastatic lesions were analyzed. For reader 1, sensitivity for detecting metastases was stationary between FBP (49%) and ASIR (52%, P = 0.0697); however, sensitivity increased in MBIR (66%, P = 0.0035). For reader 2, it was stationary for all the following sets: FBP (65%), ASIR (68%), and MBIR (67%, P > 0.05).
The MBIR and ASIR showed a limited sensitivity for detecting hepatic metastases in submillisievert LDCT.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0363-8715</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-3145</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000577</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28099224</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Female ; Humans ; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods ; Liver - diagnostic imaging ; Liver Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Prospective Studies ; Radiation Dosage ; Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods ; Reproducibility of Results ; Retrospective Studies ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><ispartof>Journal of computer assisted tomography, 2017-07, Vol.41 (4), p.644-650</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-88649dede30589501d3f06c416dc5007bdd313bc7fefa01936c3200d999e8e303</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-88649dede30589501d3f06c416dc5007bdd313bc7fefa01936c3200d999e8e303</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28099224$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Son, Jung Hee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Seung Ho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoon, Jung-Hee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Yedaun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lim, Yun-Jung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Seon-Jeong</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction, Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction, and Filtered Back Projection for Detecting Hepatic Metastases on Submillisievert Low-Dose Computed Tomography</title><title>Journal of computer assisted tomography</title><addtitle>J Comput Assist Tomogr</addtitle><description>The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic performance of model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR), and filtered back projection (FBP) on submillisievert low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for detecting hepatic metastases.
Thirty-eight patients having hepatic metastases underwent abdomen CT. Computed tomography protocol consisted of routine standard-dose portal venous phase scan (120 kVp) and 90-second delayed low-dose scan (80 kVp). The LDCT images were reconstructed with FBP, ASIR, and MBIR, respectively. Two readers recorded the number of hepatic metastases on each image set.
A total of 105 metastatic lesions were analyzed. For reader 1, sensitivity for detecting metastases was stationary between FBP (49%) and ASIR (52%, P = 0.0697); however, sensitivity increased in MBIR (66%, P = 0.0035). For reader 2, it was stationary for all the following sets: FBP (65%), ASIR (68%), and MBIR (67%, P > 0.05).
The MBIR and ASIR showed a limited sensitivity for detecting hepatic metastases in submillisievert LDCT.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>Liver - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Liver Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Radiation Dosage</subject><subject>Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><issn>0363-8715</issn><issn>1532-3145</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UdtKAzEQDaJovfyBSD7A1clmb3nUVm2homh9XtJkVqPbzZKkin_pJ5l6Q3xwGBiGc2GGQ8g-gyMGojy-Gc6O4HflZblGBiznacJZlq-TAfCCJ1XJ8i2y7f0jACs5zzbJVlqBEGmaDcjb0C566Yy3HbUNvbQa2-RUetR0EtDJYJ6R3qCynQ9uqYKx3SE90bL_AG5DJPhglGz_octO03PTRjy6nkr1RK-dfcQPlDbW0RGG1dbd0zH20UPRSwzSx0ZPI-d2OV-YtjXe4DO6QKf2JRlZj3R1_DJE15ld2Hsn-4fXXbLRyNbj3tfcIXfnZ7PhOJleXUyGJ9NE8QxCUlVFJjRq5JBXIgemeQOFylihVQ5QzrXmjM9V2WAjgQleKJ4CaCEEVlHEd0j26auc9d5hU_fOLKR7rRnUq4DqGFD9N6AoO_iU9fEn1D-i70T4O-PqkUE</recordid><startdate>201707</startdate><enddate>201707</enddate><creator>Son, Jung Hee</creator><creator>Kim, Seung Ho</creator><creator>Yoon, Jung-Hee</creator><creator>Lee, Yedaun</creator><creator>Lim, Yun-Jung</creator><creator>Kim, Seon-Jeong</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201707</creationdate><title>Comparison of Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction, Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction, and Filtered Back Projection for Detecting Hepatic Metastases on Submillisievert Low-Dose Computed Tomography</title><author>Son, Jung Hee ; Kim, Seung Ho ; Yoon, Jung-Hee ; Lee, Yedaun ; Lim, Yun-Jung ; Kim, Seon-Jeong</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-88649dede30589501d3f06c416dc5007bdd313bc7fefa01936c3200d999e8e303</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>Liver - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Liver Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Radiation Dosage</topic><topic>Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Son, Jung Hee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Seung Ho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoon, Jung-Hee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Yedaun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lim, Yun-Jung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Seon-Jeong</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Journal of computer assisted tomography</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Son, Jung Hee</au><au>Kim, Seung Ho</au><au>Yoon, Jung-Hee</au><au>Lee, Yedaun</au><au>Lim, Yun-Jung</au><au>Kim, Seon-Jeong</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction, Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction, and Filtered Back Projection for Detecting Hepatic Metastases on Submillisievert Low-Dose Computed Tomography</atitle><jtitle>Journal of computer assisted tomography</jtitle><addtitle>J Comput Assist Tomogr</addtitle><date>2017-07</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>644</spage><epage>650</epage><pages>644-650</pages><issn>0363-8715</issn><eissn>1532-3145</eissn><abstract>The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic performance of model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR), and filtered back projection (FBP) on submillisievert low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for detecting hepatic metastases.
Thirty-eight patients having hepatic metastases underwent abdomen CT. Computed tomography protocol consisted of routine standard-dose portal venous phase scan (120 kVp) and 90-second delayed low-dose scan (80 kVp). The LDCT images were reconstructed with FBP, ASIR, and MBIR, respectively. Two readers recorded the number of hepatic metastases on each image set.
A total of 105 metastatic lesions were analyzed. For reader 1, sensitivity for detecting metastases was stationary between FBP (49%) and ASIR (52%, P = 0.0697); however, sensitivity increased in MBIR (66%, P = 0.0035). For reader 2, it was stationary for all the following sets: FBP (65%), ASIR (68%), and MBIR (67%, P > 0.05).
The MBIR and ASIR showed a limited sensitivity for detecting hepatic metastases in submillisievert LDCT.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>28099224</pmid><doi>10.1097/RCT.0000000000000577</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0363-8715 |
| ispartof | Journal of computer assisted tomography, 2017-07, Vol.41 (4), p.644-650 |
| issn | 0363-8715 1532-3145 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1097_RCT_0000000000000577 |
| source | MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete |
| subjects | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Female Humans Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods Liver - diagnostic imaging Liver Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Male Middle Aged Prospective Studies Radiation Dosage Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods Reproducibility of Results Retrospective Studies Sensitivity and Specificity Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods |
| title | Comparison of Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction, Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction, and Filtered Back Projection for Detecting Hepatic Metastases on Submillisievert Low-Dose Computed Tomography |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T20%3A22%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmed_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Model-Based%20Iterative%20Reconstruction,%20Adaptive%20Statistical%20Iterative%20Reconstruction,%20and%20Filtered%20Back%20Projection%20for%20Detecting%20Hepatic%20Metastases%20on%20Submillisievert%20Low-Dose%20Computed%20Tomography&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20computer%20assisted%20tomography&rft.au=Son,%20Jung%20Hee&rft.date=2017-07&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=644&rft.epage=650&rft.pages=644-650&rft.issn=0363-8715&rft.eissn=1532-3145&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/RCT.0000000000000577&rft_dat=%3Cpubmed_cross%3E28099224%3C/pubmed_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/28099224&rfr_iscdi=true |