Comparison of CT image quality between the AIDR 3D and FIRST iterative reconstruction algorithms: an assessment based on phantom measurements and clinical images. (7th June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Leon, Stephanie; Olguin, Edmond; Schaeffer, Colin; Olguin, Catherine; Verma, Nupur; Mohammed, Tan-Lucien; Grajo, Joseph; Arreola, Manuel
• Is Part Of: Physics in medicine & biology. Volume 66:Number 12(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-06-07
• Subjects: image quality -- iterative reconstruction -- CT; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Medical physics -- Periodicals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac0391
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0031-9155

Abstract

Abstract: Modern CT iterative reconstruction algorithms are transitioning from a statistical-based to model-based approach. However, increasing complexity does not ensure improved image quality for all indications, and thorough characterization of new algorithms is important to understand their potential clinical impacts. This study performs both quantitative and qualitative analyses of image quality to compare Canon's statistical-based Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction 3D (AIDR 3D) algorithm to its model-based algorithm, Forward-projected model-based Iterative Reconstruction SoluTion(FIRST). A phantom was used to measure the task-specific modulation transfer function (MTFTask ), the noise power spectrum (NPS), and the low-contrast object-specific CNR (CNRLO ) for each algorithm using three dose levels and the convolution algorithm (kernel) appropriate for abdomen, lung, and brain imaging. Additionally, MTFTask was measured at four contrast levels, and CNRLO was measured for two object sizes. Lastly, three radiologists participated in a preference study to compare clinical image quality for three study types: non-contrast abdomen, pulmonary embolism (PE), and lung screening. Nine questions related to the appearance of anatomical features or image quality characteristics were scored for twenty exams of each type. The behavior of both algorithms depended strongly on the kernel selected. Phantom measurements suggest that FIRST should be beneficial over AIDR 3D for abdomen imaging, but do not suggest a clear overall benefit to FIRST for lung or brain imaging; metrics suggest performance may be equivalent to or slightly favor AIDR 3D, depending on the size of the object being imaged and whether spatial resolution or low-contrast resolution is more important for the task at hand. Overall, radiologists strongly preferred AIDR 3D for lung screening, slightly preferred AIDR 3D for non-contrast abdomen, and had no preference for PE. FIRST was superior for the reduction of metal artifacts. Radiologist preference may be influenced by changes to noise texture.