+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

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



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



Evaluate the performance of Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction 3D (AIDR 3D) and compare with filtered-back projection (FBP) regarding radiation dosage and image quality for an 80-kVp abdominal CT. An abdominal phantom underwent four CT acquisitions and reconstruction algorithms (FBP; AIDR 3D mild, standard and strong). Sixty-three patients underwent unenhanced liver CT with FBP and standard level AIDR 3D. Further post-acquisition reconstruction with strong level AIDR 3D was made. Patients were divided into two groups (< and ≧29cm) based on the abdominal effective diameter (Deff) at T12 level. Quantitative (attenuation, noise, and signal-to-noise ratio) and qualitative (image quality, noise, sharpness, and artifact) analysis by two readers were assessed and the interobserver agreement was calculated. Strong level AIDR 3D reduced radiation dose by 72% in the phantom and 47.1% in the patient study compared with FBP. There was no difference in mean attenuations. Image noise was the lowest and signal-to-noise ratio the highest using strong level AIDR 3D in both patient groups. For Deff<29cm, image sharpness of FBP was significantly different from those of AIDR 3D (P<0.05). For Deff ≧29cm, image quality of AIDR 3D was significantly more favorable than FBP (P<0.05). Interobserver agreement was substantial. Integrated AIDR 3D allows for an automatic reduction in radiation dose and maintenance of image quality compared with FBP. Using AIDR 3D reconstruction, patients with larger abdomen circumference could be imaged at 80kVp.

Please choose payment method:






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

Accession: 058527861

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 27501904

DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.07.002


Related references

Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction 3D Integrated with Automatic Tube Current Modulation for CT Coronary Artery Calcium Quantification: Comparison to Traditional Filtered Back Projection in an Anthropomorphic Phantom and Patients. Academic Radiology 25(8): 1010-1017, 2018

Determining the radiation dose reduction potential for coronary calcium scanning with computed tomography: an anthropomorphic phantom study comparing filtered backprojection and the adaptive iterative dose reduction algorithm for image reconstruction. Investigative Radiology 48(12): 857-862, 2013

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, 2016

Dose reduction in computed tomography of the chest: image quality of iterative reconstructions at a 50% radiation dose compared to filtered back projection at a 100% radiation dose. Rofo 186(6): 576-584, 2014

Image Quality and Radiation Dose of CT Coronary Angiography with Automatic Tube Current Modulation and Strong Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction Three-Dimensional (AIDR3D). Plos one 10(11): E0142185, 2015

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, 2012

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, 2015

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, 2013

Adaptive iterative dose reduction algorithm in CT: effect on image quality compared with filtered back projection in body phantoms of different sizes. Korean Journal of Radiology 15(2): 195-204, 2014

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

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

Adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D versus filtered back projection in CT: evaluation of image quality. Ajr. American Journal of Roentgenology 201(6): 1291-1297, 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

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

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