COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO THE DIAGNOSTIC IMAGE QUALITY ASSESSMENT FOR THE CHEST COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY
https://doi.org/10.22328/2079-5343-2020-11-3-44-55
Abstract
The aim of the current study was to assess the physical and technical image quality parameters of the CT images obtained on low-dose chest protocols.
Materials and methods. The study was performed using the ACR CT PHANTOM on the Philips Ingenuity 128 CT unit. The following parameters were selected for the assessment of image quality: Hounsfield unit accuracy, image noise, contrast to noise ratio and spatial resolution.
The results of the study indicate the lack of significant differences between the selected low-dose protocols. Additionally, the correlation between the results of the assessment of physical and technical parameters of CT images and expert image quality evaluation was weak. That does not allow implementing the low-dose protocols into clinical practice based solely on the assessment of the physical and technical parameters.
About the Authors
G. V. Berkovich
Almazov National Medical Research Centre
Russian Federation
St. Petersburg
Russian Federation
St. Petersburg
L. A. Chipiga
St. Petersburg institute of radiation hygiene after prof. P. V. Ramzaev;
A. М. Granov Russian Scientific Center of Radiology and Surgical Technologies
Russian Federation
St. Petersburg
Russian Federation
St. Petersburg
A. V. Vodovatov
St. Petersburg institute of radiation hygiene after prof. P. V. Ramzaev
Russian Federation
St. Petersburg
Russian Federation
St. Petersburg
G. E. Trufanov
Almazov National Medical Research Centre
Russian Federation
St. Petersburg
Russian Federation
St. Petersburg
References
1. Onischenko G.G., Popova A.Y., Romanovich I.K., Vodovatov A.V., Bashketova N.S., Istorik O.A., Chipiga L.A., Shatsky I.G., Repin L.V., Biblin A.M. Modern principles of the radiation protection from sources of ionizing radiation in medicine. Part 1: Trends, structure of x-ray diagnostics and doses from medical exposure. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene, 2019, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 6–24 (In Russ.). doi: 10.21514/1998-426X-2019-12-1-6-24
2. Zarb F., Rainford L., Mark F. McEntee Image quality assessment tools for optimization of CT images // Radiography. 2010. Vol. 16. Р. 147–155. DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2009.10.002.
3. Jensen K., Andersen H.K., Tingberg A., Reisse C., Fosse E. Martinsen A. C.T. Current Problems in Diagnostic // Radiology. 2016. Vol. 45, Issue 5, September–October. P. 291–296. DOI 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2015.11.004.
4. Sauter A., Koehler T., Fingerle A.A., Brendel B., Richter V., Rasper M. Ultra Low Dose CT Pulmonary Angiography with Iterative Reconstruction // PLoS ONE. 2016. Vol. 11, No. 9. Р. e0162716. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162716.
5. Higuchi K., Nagao M., Matsuo Y. et al. Detection of ground-glass opacities by use of hybrid iterative reconstruction (iDose) and low-dose 256-section computed tomography: a phantom study // Radiological Physics and Technology. 2013. Vol. 6. Р. 299–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-013-0200-y.
6. Berkovich G.V., Chipiga L.A., Vodovatov A.V., Silin A.Y., Karatetskiy A.A., Trufanov G.E. Optimization of low-dose chest CT protocols for the evaluation of the ground glass nodules using different iterative reconstruction algorithms. I, 2019, No. 4, рр. 20–32 (In Russ.). doi: 10.22328/2079-5343-2019-10-4-20-32.
7. McCollough C. H., Bruesewitz M. R., McNitt-Gray M. F., Bush K., Ruckdeschel T., Payne J. Th., Brink J. A., Zeman R. K. The phantom portion of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Computed Tomography (CT) accreditation program: Practical tips, artifact examples, and pitfalls to avoid. doi: 10.1118/1.1769632.
8. Kalender W.A. Computed tomography: fundamentals, system technology, image quality, applications. 3rd Rev. еd. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 2011. 220 p.
9. Chipiga L.A. Evaluation of tube current modulation programms for the optimization of scan protocols in computed tomography. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena=Radiation Hygiene, 2019. Vol. 12, No. 1, рp. 104–114 (In Russ.). doi: 10.21514/1998-426X-2019-12-1-104-114.
10. ICRU Report No. 87: Radiation dose and image-quality assessment in computed tomography // Journal of the ICRU. 2012. Vol. 12, No. 1. Report 87. Р. 1–149. doi: 10.1093/jicru/ndt007.
11. Friedman S.N., Fung G.S.K., Siewerdsen J.H., Tsui B.M.W. A simple approach to measure computed tomography (CT) modulation transfer function (MTF) and noise-power spectrum (NPS) using the American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation phantom // Med. Phys. 2013. Vol. 40, Nо. 5.
12. Colombo P., Zucconi F., Cadioli C., Torresin A., Milan I.T. Dose reduction using a CT iterative reconstruction algorithm with low tube voltage and exposure // ECR. 2013. C-2180. 10.1594/ecr2013/C-2180.
13. Quality assurance programme for computed tomography: diagnostic and therapy applications // Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency. 2012. 192 p.
14. Martin C.J. The importance of radiation quality for optimisation in radiology // Biomed. Imaging. Interv. J. 2007. Vol. 3, Nо. 2. P. e38.
15. Aurumskjöld M.L., Ydström K., Tingberg A., Söderberg M. Improvements to image quality using hybrid and model-based iterative reconstructions: a phantom study // Acta Radiol. 2017. Jan; Vol. 58, Nо. 1. Р. 53–61. Epub 2016 Feb. 27.
16. Löve A., Olsson M.L., Siemund R., Stålhammar F., Björkman-Burtscher I.M., Söderberg M. Six iterative reconstruction algorithms in brain CT: a phantom study on image quality at different radiation dose levels // The British Journal of Radiology. 2013 Vol. 86, Nо. 1031. Р. 20130388. doi:10.1259/bjr.20130388.
17. Andersen H.K., Völgyes D., A.C. Trægde Martinsena. Image quality with iterative reconstruction techniques in CT of the lungs — a phantom study // Journal of the ICRU. 2012. Vol. 12, No. 1. Report 87.
18. Andersen H.K., Völgyes D., Martinsen A.C.T. Image quality with iterative reconstruction techniques in CT of the lungs — A phantom study // Eur. J. of Radiol. Open. 2018. Vol. 5. Р. 35–40. doi: 10.1016/j.ejro.2018.02.002.
19. Laqmani A. Comparison of image quality and visibility of normal and abnormal findings at submillisievert chest CT using filtered back projection, iterative model reconstruction (IMR) and iDose4 // Eur. J. of Radiology. 2016. Vol. 85. Р. 1971–1979. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.09.001.
Review
For citations:
Berkovich G.V., Chipiga L.A., Vodovatov A.V., Trufanov G.E. COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO THE DIAGNOSTIC IMAGE QUALITY ASSESSMENT FOR THE CHEST COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY. Diagnostic radiology and radiotherapy. 2020;11(3):44-55. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22328/2079-5343-2020-11-3-44-55
Views:
839
Email this article 