Image quality and radiologists’ subjective acceptance using model-based iterative and deep learning reconstructions as adjuncts to ultrahigh-resolution CT in low-dose contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT: phantom and clinical pilot studies

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Purpose: In contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT (CE-APCT) for oncologic follow-up, ultrahigh-resolution CT (UHRCT) may improve depiction of fine lesions and low-dose scans are desirable for minimizing the potential adverse effects by ionizing radiation. We compared image quality and radiologists’ acceptance of model-based iterative (MBIR) and deep learning (DLR) reconstructions of low-dose CE-APCT by UHRCT. Methods: Using our high-resolution (matrix size: 1024) and low-dose (tube voltage 100 kV; noise index: 20–40 HU) protocol, we scanned phantoms to compare the modulation transfer function and noise power spectrum between MBIR and DLR and assessed findings in 36 consecutive patients who underwent CE-APCT (noise index: 35 HU; mean CTDIvol: 4.2 ± 1.6 mGy) by UHRCT. We used paired t-test to compare objective noise and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare radiologists’ subjective acceptance regarding noise, image texture and appearance, and diagnostic confidence between MBIR and DLR using our routine protocol (matrix size: 512; tube voltage: 120 kV; noise index: 15 HU) for reference. Results: Phantom studies demonstrated higher spatial resolution and lower low-frequency noise by DLR than MBIR at equal doses. Clinical studies indicated significantly worse objective noise, CNR, and subjective noise by DLR than MBIR, but other subjective characteristics were better (P < 0.001 for all). Compared with the routine protocol, subjective noise was similar or better by DLR, and other subjective characteristics were similar or worse by MBIR. Conclusion: Image quality, except regarding noise characteristics, and acceptance by radiologists were better by DLR than MBIR in low-dose CE-APCT by UHRCT. Graphical
Funding Information
  • The Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Japan ((C) 18k07643)

This publication has 36 references indexed in Scilit: