-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Model-based vs hybrid iterative reconstruction technique in ultralow-dose submillisievert CT colonography
L. Lambert, P. Ourednicek, J. Jahoda, A. Lambertova, J. Danes,
Jazyk angličtina Země Anglie, Velká Británie
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
NLK
British Institute of Radiology
od 1928-01-01
Free Medical Journals
od 2009 do Před 2 roky
Europe PubMed Central
od 2009 do Před 1 rokem
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
od 2008-01-01 do Před 1 rokem
Wiley Free Content
od 2009 do 2023
PubMed
25605346
DOI
10.1259/bjr.20140667
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- dávka záření MeSH
- kolonografie počítačovou tomografií metody MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- rentgenový obraz - interpretace počítačová metody MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- teoretické modely MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
OBJECTIVE: To compare image quality of different reconstruction techniques in submillisievert ultralow-dose CT colonography (CTC) and to correlate colonic findings with subsequent optical colonoscopy. METHODS: 58 patients underwent ultralow-dose CTC. The images were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP), hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) or model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) techniques. In each segment, endoluminal noise (expressed as standard deviation of endoluminal density) was measured and image quality was rated on a five-point Likert scale by two independent readers. Colonic lesions were evaluated in consensus and correlated with subsequent optical colonoscopy where possible. RESULTS: The estimated radiation dose was 0.41 ± 0.05 mSv for the supine and 0.42 ± 0.04 mSv for the prone acquisitions. In the endoluminal view, the image quality was rated better in HIR, whereas better scores were obtained in MBIR in the cross-sectional view, where the endoluminal noise was the lowest (p < 0.0001). Five (26%) polyps were not identified using both computer-aided detection and endoluminal inspection in FBP images vs only one (5%) in MBIR and none in HIR images. CONCLUSION: This study showed that in submillisievert ultralow-dose CTC, the image quality for the endoluminal view is better when HIR is used, whereas MBIR yields superior images for the cross-sectional view. The inferior quality of images reconstructed with FBP may result in decreased detection of colonic lesions. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Radiation dose from CTC can be safely reduced <1 mSv for both positions when iterative reconstruction is used. MBIR provides better image quality in the cross-sectional view and HIR in the endoluminal view.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc15031497
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20151014121717.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 151005s2015 enk f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1259/bjr.20140667 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)25605346
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a enk
- 100 1_
- $a Lambert, L $u 1 Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine of Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
- 245 10
- $a Model-based vs hybrid iterative reconstruction technique in ultralow-dose submillisievert CT colonography / $c L. Lambert, P. Ourednicek, J. Jahoda, A. Lambertova, J. Danes,
- 520 9_
- $a OBJECTIVE: To compare image quality of different reconstruction techniques in submillisievert ultralow-dose CT colonography (CTC) and to correlate colonic findings with subsequent optical colonoscopy. METHODS: 58 patients underwent ultralow-dose CTC. The images were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP), hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) or model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) techniques. In each segment, endoluminal noise (expressed as standard deviation of endoluminal density) was measured and image quality was rated on a five-point Likert scale by two independent readers. Colonic lesions were evaluated in consensus and correlated with subsequent optical colonoscopy where possible. RESULTS: The estimated radiation dose was 0.41 ± 0.05 mSv for the supine and 0.42 ± 0.04 mSv for the prone acquisitions. In the endoluminal view, the image quality was rated better in HIR, whereas better scores were obtained in MBIR in the cross-sectional view, where the endoluminal noise was the lowest (p < 0.0001). Five (26%) polyps were not identified using both computer-aided detection and endoluminal inspection in FBP images vs only one (5%) in MBIR and none in HIR images. CONCLUSION: This study showed that in submillisievert ultralow-dose CTC, the image quality for the endoluminal view is better when HIR is used, whereas MBIR yields superior images for the cross-sectional view. The inferior quality of images reconstructed with FBP may result in decreased detection of colonic lesions. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Radiation dose from CTC can be safely reduced <1 mSv for both positions when iterative reconstruction is used. MBIR provides better image quality in the cross-sectional view and HIR in the endoluminal view.
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 _2
- $a kolonografie počítačovou tomografií $x metody $7 D023881
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a teoretické modely $7 D008962
- 650 _2
- $a dávka záření $7 D011829
- 650 _2
- $a rentgenový obraz - interpretace počítačová $x metody $7 D011857
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 700 1_
- $a Ourednicek, P
- 700 1_
- $a Jahoda, J
- 700 1_
- $a Lambertova, A
- 700 1_
- $a Danes, J
- 773 0_
- $w MED00000884 $t The British journal of radiology $x 1748-880X $g Roč. 88, č. 1048 (2015), s. 20140667
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25605346 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20151005 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20151014121907 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1092373 $s 914623
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2015 $b 88 $c 1048 $d 20140667 $e 20150121 $i 1748-880X $m British journal of radiology $n Br J Radiol $x MED00000884
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20151005