Effect of contrast magnitude and resolution metric on noise-resolution tradeoffs in x-ray CT imaging: a comparison of non-quadratic penalized alternating minimization and filtered backprojection algorithms

Purpose: To assess the impact of contrast magnitude and spatial resolution metric choices on the noise-resolution tradeoff of a non-quadratic penalized statistical iterative algorithm, Alternating Minimization (AM), in x-ray transmission CT. Methods: Monoenergetic Poisson-counting CT data were simulated for a water phantom containing circular inserts of varying contrast (7% to 238%). The data was reconstructed with conventional filtered backprojection (FBP) and two non-quadratic penalty parameterizations of AM. A range of smoothing strengths is reconstructed for each algorithm to quantify the noise-resolution tradeoff curve. Modulation transfer functions (MTFs) were estimated from the circular contrast-insert edges and then integrated up to a cutoff frequency as a single-parameter measure of local spatial resolution. Two cutoff frequencies and two resolution comparison values are investigated for their effect on reported tradeoff advantage. Results: The noise-resolution tradeoff curve was always more favorable for AM than FBP. For strongly edge-preserving penalty functions, this advantage was found to be dependent upon the contrast for which resolution is quantified for comparison. The magnitude of the reported dose reduction potential of the AM algorithm was shown to be dependent on the resolution metric choices, though the general contrast-dependence was always evident. Conclusions: The penalized AM algorithm shows the potential to reconstruct images of comparable quality using a fraction of the dose required by FBP. The contrast-dependence on the tradeoff advantage implies that statistical algorithms using non-quadratic penalty functions should be assessed using contrasts relevant to the intended clinical task.

[1]  H. Malcolm Hudson,et al.  Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data , 1994, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[2]  Joshua D. Evans,et al.  Noise-resolution tradeoffs in x-ray CT imaging: a comparison of penalized alternating minimization and filtered backprojection algorithms. , 2011, Medical physics.

[3]  L. J. Thomas,et al.  Noise and Edge Artifacts in Maximum-Likelihood Reconstructions for Emission Tomography , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[4]  Michael J. Flynn,et al.  Measurement of the spatial resolution of a clinical volumetric computed tomography scanner using a sphere phantom , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[5]  P. Judy,et al.  The line spread function and modulation transfer function of a computed tomographic scanner. , 1976, Medical physics.

[6]  L. Tanoue Computed Tomography — An Increasing Source of Radiation Exposure , 2009 .

[7]  B. Whiting,et al.  On two-parameter models of photon cross sections: application to dual-energy CT imaging. , 2006, Medical physics.

[8]  Charles L. Byrne,et al.  Iterative image reconstruction algorithms based on cross-entropy minimization , 1992, Optics & Photonics.

[9]  Per-Erik Danielsson,et al.  Regularized iterative weighted filtered backprojection for helical cone-beam CT. , 2008, Medical physics.

[10]  Avinash C. Kak,et al.  Principles of computerized tomographic imaging , 2001, Classics in applied mathematics.

[11]  I. Csiszár Why least squares and maximum entropy? An axiomatic approach to inference for linear inverse problems , 1991 .

[12]  Jean-Baptiste Thibault,et al.  A three-dimensional statistical approach to improved image quality for multislice helical CT. , 2007, Medical physics.

[13]  K. Lange,et al.  EM reconstruction algorithms for emission and transmission tomography. , 1984, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[14]  S J Riederer,et al.  Noise Due to Photon Counting Statistics in Computed X‐Ray Tomography , 1977, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[15]  P. Green Bayesian reconstructions from emission tomography data using a modified EM algorithm. , 1990, IEEE transactions on medical imaging.

[16]  Joseph A. O'Sullivan,et al.  Alternating Minimization Algorithms for Transmission Tomography , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[17]  J. Boone,et al.  An analytical edge spread function model for computer fitting and subsequent calculation of the LSF and MTF. , 1994, Medical physics.

[18]  R Proksa,et al.  Noise and resolution in images reconstructed with FBP and OSC algorithms for CT. , 2007, Medical physics.

[19]  P. L. La Riviere Penalized-likelihood sinogram smoothing for low-dose CT. , 2005, Medical physics.