Hong JH, et al. Korean J Radiol. 2020 Jul;21:e105. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2020.0020

Yeoh H, et al. Korean J Radiol. 2021 Nov;22(11):1850-1857. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2021.0140

Lee M, et al. Korean J Radiol. 2017 May-Jun;18(3):498-509. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.3.498

To compare image qualities between vendor-neutral and vendor-specific hybrid iterative reconstruction (IR) techniques for abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) in young patients. In phantom study, we used an anthropomorphic pediatric phantom, age-equivalent to 5-year-old, and reconstructed CT data using traditional filtered back projection (FBP), vendor-specific and vendor-neutral IR techniques (ClariCT; ClariPI) in various radiation doses. Noise, low-contrast detectability and subjective spatial resolution were compared between FBP, vendor-specific (i.e., iDose1 to 5; Philips Healthcare), and vendor-neutral (i.e., ClariCT1 to 5) IR techniques in phantom. In 43 patients (median, 14 years; age range 1-19 years), noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and qualitative image quality scores of abdominopelvic CT were compared between FBP, iDose level 4 (iDose4), and ClariCT level 2 (ClariCT2), which showed most similar image quality to clinically used vendor-specific IR images (i.e., iDose4) in phantom study. Noise, CNR, and qualitative imaging scores were compared using one-way repeated measure analysis of variance. In phantom study, ClariCT2 showed noise level similar to iDose4 (14.68-7.66 Hounsfield unit [HU] vs. 14.78-6.99 HU at CT dose index volume range of 0.8-3.8 mGy). Subjective low-contrast detectability and spatial resolution were similar between ClariCT2 and iDose4. In clinical study, ClariCT2 was equivalent to iDose4 for noise (14.26-17.33 vs. 16.01-18.90) and CNR (3.55-5.24 vs. 3.20-4.60) (p > 0.05). For qualitative imaging scores, the overall image quality ([reader 1, reader 2]; 2.74 vs. 2.07, 3.02 vs. 2.28) and noise (2.88 vs. 2.23, 2.93 vs. 2.33) of ClariCT2 were superior to those of FBP (p < 0.05), and not different from those of iDose4 (2.74 vs. 2.72, 3.02 vs. 2.98; 2.88 vs. 2.77, 2.93 vs. 2.86) (p > 0.05). Vendor-neutral IR technique shows image quality similar to that of clinically used vendor-specific hybrid IR technique for abdominopelvic CT in young patients.

While the recent advancements of computed tomography (CT) technology have contributed in reducing radiation dose and image noise, an objective evaluation of image quality in patient scans has not yet been established. In this study, we present a patient-specific CT image quality evaluation method that includes fully automated measurements of noise level, structure sharpness, and alteration of structure. This study used the CT images of 120 patients from four different CT scanners reconstructed with three types of algorithm: filtered back projection (FBP), vendor-specific iterative reconstruction (IR), and a vendor-agnostic deep learning model (DLM, ClariCT.AI, ClariPi Inc.). The structure coherence feature (SCF) was used to divide an image into the homogeneous (R_H) and structure edge (R_S) regions, which in turn were used to localize the regions of interests (ROIs) for subsequent analysis of image quality indices. The noise level was calculated by averaging the standard deviations from five randomly selected ROIs on R_H, and the mean SCFs on R_S was used to estimate the structure sharpness. The structure alteration was defined by the standard deviation ratio between R_S and R_H on the subtraction image between FBP and IR or DLM, in which lower structure alterations indicate successful noise reduction without degradation of structure details. The estimated structure sharpness showed a high correlation of 0.793 with manually measured edge slopes. Compared to FBP, IR and DLM showed 34.38% and 51.30% noise reduction, 2.87% and 0.59% lower structure sharpness, and 2.20% and -12.03% structure alteration, respectively, on an average. DLM showed statistically superior performance to IR in all three image quality metrics. This study is expected to contribute to enhance the CT protocol optimization process by allowing a high throughput and quantitative image quality evaluation during the introduction or adjustment of lower-dose CT protocol into routine practice.