+ Site Statistics
References:
52,654,530
Abstracts:
29,560,856
PMIDs:
28,072,755
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn

+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Impact of adaptive iterative dose reduction (AIDR) 3D on low-dose abdominal CT: comparison with routine-dose CT using filtered back projection



Impact of adaptive iterative dose reduction (AIDR) 3D on low-dose abdominal CT: comparison with routine-dose CT using filtered back projection



Acta Radiologica 54(8): 869-875



While CT is widely used in medical practice, a substantial source of radiation exposure is associated with an increased lifetime risk of cancer. Therefore, concerns to dose reduction in CT examinations are increasing and an iterative reconstruction algorithm, which allow for dose reduction by compensating image noise in the image reconstruction, has been developed. To investigate the performance of low-dose abdominal CT using adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D (AIDR 3D) compared to routine-dose CT using filtered back projection (FBP). Fifty-eight patients underwent both routine-dose CT scans using FBP and low-dose CT scans using AIDR 3D in the abdomen. The image noise levels, signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) of the aorta, portal vein, liver, and pancreas were measured and compared in both scans. Visual evaluations were performed. The volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) was measured. Image noise levels on low-dose CT images using AIDR 3D were significantly lower than, or not significantly different from, routine-dose CT images using FBP in reviewing the data on the basis of all patients and the three BMI groups. SNRs and CNRs on low-dose CT images using AIDR 3D were significantly higher than, or not significantly different from, routine-dose CT images using FBP in reviewing the data on the basis of all patients and the three BMI groups. In visual evaluation of the images, there were no statistically significant differences between the scans in all organs independently of BMI. The average CTDIvol at routine-dose and low dose CT was 21.4 and 10.8 mGy, respectively. Low-dose abdominal CT using AIDR 3D allows for approximately 50% reduction in radiation dose without a degradation of image quality compared to routine-dose CT using FBP independently of BMI.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 053711537

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 23761554

DOI: 10.1177/0284185113488576


Related references

Abdominal CT: comparison of low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients. Ajr. American Journal of Roentgenology 195(3): 713-719, 2010

Low-Dose CT With the Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction V Technique in Abdominal Organ Injury: Comparison With Routine-Dose CT With Filtered Back Projection. Ajr. American Journal of Roentgenology 2019: 1-8, 2019

Adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D (AIDR 3D) vs. filtered back projection: radiation dose reduction capabilities of wide volume and helical scanning techniques on area-detector CT in a chest phantom study. Acta Radiologica 57(6): 684-690, 2017

Low-dose computed tomographic urography using adaptive iterative dose reduction 3-dimensional: comparison with routine-dose computed tomography with filtered back projection. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 37(3): 426-431, 2013

Standard dose versus low-dose abdominal and pelvic CT: comparison between filtered back projection versus adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D. Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging 95(1): 47-53, 2014

Dose reduction in chest CT: comparison of the adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D, adaptive iterative dose reduction, and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. European Journal of Radiology 81(12): 4185-4195, 2013

Evaluation of dose reduction and image quality in CT colonography: comparison of low-dose CT with iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection. European Radiology 25(1): 221-229, 2015

Diagnostic Performance and Dose Comparison of Filtered Back Projection and Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction Three-dimensional CT Enterography in Children and Young Adults. Radiology 276(1): 233-242, 2015

Performance of adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D integrated with automatic tube current modulation in radiation dose and image noise reduction compared with filtered-back projection for 80-kVp abdominal CT: Anthropomorphic phantom and patient study. European Journal of Radiology 85(9): 1666-1672, 2017

Patient dose and image quality in low-dose abdominal CT: a comparison between iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection. Acta Radiologica 54(5): 540-548, 2014

A comparison of adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D and filtered back projection in craniocervical CT angiography. Clinical Radiology 72(1): 96.E1-96.E6, 2016

Clinical evaluation of image quality and radiation dose reduction in upper abdominal computed tomography using model-based iterative reconstruction; comparison with filtered back projection and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. European Journal of Radiology 84(9): 1715-1723, 2016

Half-dose abdominal CT with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction technique in children - comparison with full-dose CT with filtered back projection. Pediatric Radiology 45(2): 188-193, 2016

Image quality of adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D of coronary CT angiography of 640-slice CT: comparison with filtered back-projection. International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging 29(3): 669-676, 2013

Image quality of Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction 3D of coronary CT angiography of 64-slice CT comparison with filtered back-projection. The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging 29(3): 669-676, 2013