LinkedIn

 آمار

تعداد نشریات20
تعداد شماره‌ها1,093
تعداد مقالات10,026
تعداد مشاهده مقاله27,376,115
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله7,547,220
Suyudi, I, Anam, C, Sutanto, H, Triadyaksa, P, Fujibuchi, T. (1399). Comparisons of Hounsfield Unit Linearity between Images Reconstructed using an Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction (AIDR) and a Filter Back-Projection (FBP) Techniques. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 10(2), 215-224. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.1912-1013
I Suyudi; C Anam; H Sutanto; P Triadyaksa; T Fujibuchi. "Comparisons of Hounsfield Unit Linearity between Images Reconstructed using an Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction (AIDR) and a Filter Back-Projection (FBP) Techniques". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 10, 2, 1399, 215-224. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.1912-1013
Suyudi, I, Anam, C, Sutanto, H, Triadyaksa, P, Fujibuchi, T. (1399). 'Comparisons of Hounsfield Unit Linearity between Images Reconstructed using an Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction (AIDR) and a Filter Back-Projection (FBP) Techniques', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 10(2), pp. 215-224. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.1912-1013
Suyudi, I, Anam, C, Sutanto, H, Triadyaksa, P, Fujibuchi, T. Comparisons of Hounsfield Unit Linearity between Images Reconstructed using an Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction (AIDR) and a Filter Back-Projection (FBP) Techniques. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1399; 10(2): 215-224. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.1912-1013

Comparisons of Hounsfield Unit Linearity between Images Reconstructed using an Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction (AIDR) and a Filter Back-Projection (FBP) Techniques

Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering
مقاله 13، دوره 10، شماره 2، خرداد و تیر 2020، صفحه 215-224    اصل مقاله (1.14 M)
نوع مقاله: Original Research
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.1912-1013
نویسندگان
I Suyudi1؛ C Anam* 2؛ H Sutanto2؛ P Triadyaksa2؛ T Fujibuchi3
1BSc, Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Indonesia
2PhD, Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Indonesia
3PhD, Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Japan
چکیده
Background: The HU linearity is an essential parameter in a quantitative imaging and the treatment planning systems of radiotherapy.
Objective: This study aims to evaluate the linearity of Hounsfield unit (HU) in applying the adaptive iterative dose reduction (AIDR) on CT scanner and its comparison to the filtered back-projection (FBP).
Material and Methods: In this experimental phantom study, a TOS-phantom was scanned using a Toshiba Alexion 6 CT scanner. The images were reconstructed using the FBP and AIDR. Measurements of HU and noise values were performed on images of the “HU linearity” module of the TOS-phantom. The module had five embedded objects, i.e., air, polypropylene, nylon, acrylic, and Delrin. On each object, a circle area of 4.32 cm2 was drawn and used to measure HU and noise values. The R2 of the relation between mass densities vs. HU values was used to measure HU linearities at four different tube voltages. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare unpaired data and p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: The AIDR method produced a significant smaller image noise than the FBP method (p-value < 0.05). There were no significant differences in HU values of images reconstructed using FBP and AIDR methods (p-value > 0.05). The HU values acquired by the methods showed the same linearity marked by coinciding linear lines with the same R2 value (> 0.999).
Conclusion: AIDR methods produce the HU linearity as FBP methods with a smaller image noise level.
کلیدواژه‌ها
Tomography Scanners, X-Ray Computed؛ Radiation Dosage؛ Phantoms, Imaging؛ FBP؛ AIDR؛ HU Linearity
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
مراجع
  1. Coultre RL, Bize J, Champendal M, Wittwer D, Ryckx N, Aroua B, Trueb B, Verdun FR. Exposure of the Swiss Population by Radiodiagnostics: 2013 Review. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2016;169(1-4):221-4. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncv462. PubMed PMID:26541187. PubMed PMCID:PMC4911961.
  2. Hricak H, Brenner DJ, Adelstein SJ, Frush DP, Hall EJ, Howell RW, et al. Managing radiation use in medical imaging: a multifaceted challenge. Radiology. 2011;258(3):889-905. doi. 10.1148/radiol.10101157.
  3. Jones JGA, Mills CN, Mogensen MA, Lee CI. Radiation dose from medical imaging: A primer for emergency physicians. West J Emerg Med. 2012;13(2):202-10. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2011.11.6804. PubMed PMID: 22900113. PubMed PMCID: PMC3415811.
  4. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD, Hall EJ, Berdon WE. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176(2):289-96. PubMed PMID: 11159059.
  5. Anam C, Budi WS, Adi K, Sutanto H, Haryanto F, Mohd Hanafi A, Fujibuchi H, Dougherty G. Assessment of patient dose and noise level of clinical CT images: automated measurements. J Radiol Prot. 2019;39(3):783-93. doi: 10.1088/1361-6498/ab23cc. PubMed PMID: 31117064.
  6. Hendee W. Risk of medical imaging. Med Phys. 2013;40(4).040401. doi: 10.1118/1.4794923.
  7. Anam C, Haryanto F, Widita R, Arief I, Dougherty G. Automated Calculation of Water‐equivalent Diameter (DW) Based on AAPM Task Group 220. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17(4):320-33. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v17i4.6171. PubMed PMID: 27455491. PubMed PMCID: PMC5690059.
  8. Baskan O, Erol C, Ozbek H, Paksoy Y. Effect of radiation dose reduction on image quality in adult head CT with noise‐suppressing reconstruction system with a 256 slice MDCT. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015;16(3):285-96.
  9. Costello JE, Cecava ND, Tucker JE, Bau JL. CT radiation dose: Current controversies and dose reduction strategies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(6):1283-90. doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.9720. PubMed PMID: 24261368.
  10. Anam C, Haryanto F, Widita R, Arif I, Dougherty G. An investigation of spatial resolution and noise in reconstructed CT images using iterative reconstruction (IR) and filtered back-projection (FBP). J. Phys Conf Ser. 2019;1127:012016. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1127/1/012016.
  11. Anam C, Fujibuchi T, Haryanto F, Widita R, Arif I, Dougherty G. An evaluation of computed tomography dose index measurements using a pencil ionisation chamber and small detectors. J Radiol Prot. 2019;39(1)112-124. doi: 10.1088/1361-6498/aaf2b4. PubMed PMID: 30524057.
  12. Anam C, Haryanto F, Widita R, Arif I. New noise reduction method for reducing CT scan dose: Combining Wiener filtering and edge detection algorithm. AIP Conf Proc. 2015;1677(1):040004. doi. 10.1063/1.4930648.
  13. Hussain FA, Mail N, Shamy AM, Alghamdi S, Saoudi A. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of radiation dose and image quality of computed tomography images using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physic. 2016;17(3):419-432. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.5903.
  14. Mathieu KB, Ai H, Fox PS, Godoy MC, Munden RF, De Groot PM, Pan T. Radiation dose reduction for CT lung cancer screening using ASIR and MBIR: a phantom study. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014;15(2):271-80. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v15i2.4515. PubMed PMID: 24710436. PubMed PMCID: PMC5875473.
  15. Dodge CT, Tamm EP, Cody DD, Liu X, Jensen CT, Wei W, Kundra V, John Rong X. Performance evaluation of iterative reconstruction algorithms for achieving CT radiation dose reduction — a phantom study. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physic. 2016:17(2);511-31. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v17i2.5709.
  16. Brady SL, Yee BS, Kaufman RA. Characterization of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm for dose reduction in CT: A pediatric oncology perspective. Med Phys. 2012;39(9):5520-31. doi: 10.1118/1.4745563. PubMed PMID: 22957619.
  17. Katsura M, Matsuda I, Akahane M, Sato J, Akai H, Yasaka K, Kunimatsu A, Ohtomo K. Model-based iterative reconstruction technique for radiation dose reduction in chest CT: comparison with the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction technique. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(8):1613-23. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2452-z. PubMed PMID: 22538629.
  18. Volders D, Bols A, Haspeslagh M, Coenegrachts K. Model-based iterative reconstruction and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction techniques in abdominal CT: comparison of image quality in the detection of colorectal liver metastases. Radiology. 2013;269(2):469-74. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13130002. PubMed PMID: 23847252.
  19. Kondo M, Hatakenaka M, Higuchi K, Fujioka T, Shirasaka T, Nakamura Y, Nakamura K, Yoshiura T, Honda H. Feasibility of low-radiation-dose CT for abdominal examinations with hybrid iterative reconstruction algorithm: low-contrast phantom study. Radiological physics and technology. 2013;6(2):287-92. doi: 10.1007/s12194-012-0197-7.
  20. Leipsic J, Labounty TM, Heilbron B, Min JK, Mancini GB, Lin FY, Taylor C, Dunning A, Earls JP. Estimated radiation dose reduction using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in coronary CT angiography: the ERASIR study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(3):655-60. doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.4288. PubMed PMID: 20729443.
  21. Choo JY, Goo JM, Lee CH, Park CM, Park SJ, Shim MS. Quantitative analysis of emphysema and airway measurements according to iterative reconstruction algorithms: comparison of filtered back projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and model-based iterative reconstruction. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(4):799-806. doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-3078-5. PubMed PMID: 24275806.
  22. Pickhardt PJ, Lubner MG, Kim DH, Tang J, Ruma JA, Del Rio AM, Chen GH. Abdominal CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(6):1266-74. doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.9382. PubMed PMID: 23169718. PubMed PMCID: PMC3689212.
  23. Desai GS, Uppot RN, Yu EW, Kambadakone AR, Sahani DV. Impact of iterative reconstruction on image quality and radiation dose in multidetector CT of large body size adults. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(8):1631-40. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2424-3. PubMed PMID: 22527370.
  24. Gramer BM, Muenzel D, Leber V, Von Thaden AK, Feussner H, et al. Impact of iterative reconstruction on CNR and SNR in dynamic myocardial perfusion imaging in an animal model. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(12):2654-61. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2525-z. PubMed PMID: 22752461.
  25. Willemink MJ, De Jong PA, Leiner T, De Heer LM, Nievelstein RA, Budde RP, Schilham AM. Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography Part 1: technical principles. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(6):1623-31. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2765-y. PubMed PMID: 23314600.
  26. Willemink MJ, Leiner T, De Jong PA, De Heer LM, Nievelstein RA, Schilham AM, Budde RP. Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography part 2: initial results in dose reduction and image quality. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(6):1632-42. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2764-z. PubMed PMID: 23322411.
  27. Beister M, Kolditz D, Kalender WA. Iterative reconstruction methods in X-ray CT. Phys Med. 2012;28(2):94-108. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2012.01.003. PubMed PMID: 22316498.
  28. Kim M, Lee JM, Yoon JH, Son H, Choi JW, Han JK, Choi BI. Adaptive iterative dose reduction algorithm in CT: effect on image quality compared with filtered back projection in body phantoms of different sizes. Korean J Radiol. 2014;15(2):195-204. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2014.15.2.195. PubMed PMID: 24644409, PubMed PMCID: PMC3955785.
  29. Hara AK, Paden RG, Silva AC, Kujak JL, Lawder HJ, Pavlicek W. Iterative reconstruction technique for reducing body radiation dose at CT: feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(3):764-71. doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.2397. PubMed PMID: 19696291.
  30. Miéville FA, Gudinchet F, Brunelle F, Bochud FO, Verdun FR. Iterative reconstruction methods in two different MDCT scanners: physical metrics and 4-alternative forced-choice detectability experiments--a phantom approach. Phys Med. 2013;29(1):99-110. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2011.12.004. PubMed PMID: 22217444.
  31. Li H, Dolly S, Chen HC, Anastasio MA, Low DA, Li HH, Michalski JM, Thorstad WL, Gay H, Mutic S. A comparative study based on image quality and clinical task performance for CT reconstruction algorithms in radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17(4):377-90. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v17i4.5763. PubMed PMID: 27455472. PubMed PMCID: PMC5690061.
  32. Ghetti C, Palleri F, Serreli G, Ortenzia O, Ruffini L. Physical characterization of a new CT iterative reconstruction method operating in sinogram space. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013;14(4):4347. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v14i4.4347. PubMed PMID: 23835395. PubMed PMCID: PMC5714520.
  33. Ott JG, Ba A, Racine D, Ryckx N, Bochud FO, Alkadhi H, Verdun FR. Patient Exposure Optimisation through Task-Based Assessment of a New Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction Technique. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2016;169(1-4):68-72. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncw019. PubMed PMID: 26962148. PubMed PMCID: PMC4911965.
  34. Kalender WA. Dose in x-ray computed tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59(3):R129-50. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/3/R129. PubMed PMID: 24434792.
  35. Lascola KM, O’Brien RT, Wilkins PA, Clark-Price SC, Hartman SK, Mitchell MA. Qualitative and quantitative interpretation of computed tomography of the lungs in healthy neonatal foals. Am J Vet Res. 2013;74(9):1239-46. doi: 10.2460/ajvr.74.9.1239. PubMed PMID: 23977897.
  36. Yohannes I, Prasetio H, Kallis K, Bert C. Dosimetric accuracy of the cone‐beam CT‐based treatment planning of the Vero system: a phantom study. Journal of applied clinical medical physics. 2016;17(4):106-113. doi:10.1120/jacmp.v17i4.6194.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 3,300
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,088


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب