Observer Performance in the Detection and Classification of Malignant Hepatic Nodules and Masses with CT Image-Space Denoising and Iterative Reconstruction.

PURPOSE To determine if lower-dose computed tomographic (CT) scans obtained with adaptive image-based noise reduction (adaptive nonlocal means [ANLM]) or iterative reconstruction (sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction [SAFIRE]) result in reduced observer performance in the detection of malignant hepatic nodules and masses compared with routine-dose scans obtained with filtered back projection (FBP). MATERIALS AND METHODS This study was approved by the institutional review board and was compliant with HIPAA. Informed consent was obtained from patients for the retrospective use of medical records for research purposes. CT projection data from 33 abdominal and 27 liver or pancreas CT examinations were collected (median volume CT dose index, 13.8 and 24.0 mGy, respectively). Hepatic malignancy was defined by progression or regression or with histopathologic findings. Lower-dose data were created by using a validated noise insertion method (10.4 mGy for abdominal CT and 14.6 mGy for liver or pancreas CT) and images reconstructed with FBP, ANLM, and SAFIRE. Four readers evaluated routine-dose FBP images and all lower-dose images, circumscribing liver lesions and selecting diagnosis. The jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristic figure of merit (FOM) was calculated on a per-malignant nodule or per-mass basis. Noninferiority was defined by the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between lower-dose and routine-dose FOMs being less than -0.10. RESULTS Twenty-nine patients had 62 malignant hepatic nodules and masses. Estimated FOM differences between lower-dose FBP and lower-dose ANLM versus routine-dose FBP were noninferior (difference: -0.041 [95% CI: -0.090, 0.009] and -0.003 [95% CI: -0.052, 0.047], respectively). In patients with dedicated liver scans, lower-dose ANLM images were noninferior (difference: +0.015 [95% CI: -0.077, 0.106]), whereas lower-dose FBP images were not (difference -0.049 [95% CI: -0.140, 0.043]). In 37 patients with SAFIRE reconstructions, the three lower-dose alternatives were found to be noninferior to the routine-dose FBP. CONCLUSION At moderate levels of dose reduction, lower-dose FBP images without ANLM or SAFIRE were noninferior to routine-dose images for abdominal CT but not for liver or pancreas CT.

[1]  S. Park,et al.  A prospective comparison of standard-dose CT enterography and 50% reduced-dose CT enterography with and without noise reduction for evaluating Crohn disease. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  Geoffrey D. Rubin,et al.  Body CT: technical advances for improving safety. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. , 1992, Investigative radiology.

[4]  G. Bongartz,et al.  Diagnostic performance of low-dose CT for the detection of urolithiasis: a meta-analysis. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  Hae Young Kim,et al.  Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  C. McCollough,et al.  Optimal tube potential for radiation dose reduction in pediatric CT: principles, clinical implementations, and pitfalls. , 2011, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[7]  Dev P Chakraborty,et al.  Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation. , 2004, Medical physics.

[8]  N. Obuchowski,et al.  Effect of altering automatic exposure control settings and quality reference mAs on radiation dose, image quality, and diagnostic efficacy in MDCT enterography of active inflammatory Crohn's disease. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  Shuai Leng,et al.  Attenuation-based estimation of patient size for the purpose of size specific dose estimation in CT. Part II. Implementation on abdomen and thorax phantoms using cross sectional CT images and scanned projection radiograph images. , 2012, Medical physics.

[10]  D. Hough,et al.  Pilot Study of Detection, Radiologist Confidence and Image Quality With Sinogram-Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction at Half–Routine Dose Level , 2013, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[11]  Armando Manduca,et al.  Adaptive nonlocal means filtering based on local noise level for CT denoising. , 2013, Medical physics.

[12]  Armando Manduca,et al.  Methods for clinical evaluation of noise reduction techniques in abdominopelvic CT. , 2014, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[13]  T. Pawlik,et al.  Hereditary Pancreatic and Hepatobiliary Cancers , 2011, International journal of surgical oncology.

[14]  Patrik Rogalla,et al.  Iterative reconstruction algorithm for CT: can radiation dose be decreased while low-contrast detectability is preserved? , 2013, Radiology.

[15]  C. McCollough,et al.  Radiation dose reduction in computed tomography: techniques and future perspective. , 2009, Imaging in medicine.

[16]  Joon Koo Han,et al.  Assessment of a Model-Based, Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm (MBIR) Regarding Image Quality and Dose Reduction in Liver Computed Tomography , 2013, Investigative radiology.

[17]  T. Pawlik,et al.  Colorectal Liver Metastases , 2011, International journal of surgical oncology.

[18]  D. Hough,et al.  Lowering kilovoltage to reduce radiation dose in contrast-enhanced abdominal CT: initial assessment of a prototype automated kilovoltage selection tool. , 2012, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[19]  D P Chakraborty,et al.  Maximum likelihood analysis of free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) data. , 1989, Medical physics.

[20]  Nancy A Obuchowski,et al.  Effect of reduced radiation exposure and iterative reconstruction on detection of low-contrast low-attenuation lesions in an anthropomorphic liver phantom: an 18-reader study. , 2014, Radiology.

[21]  K. P. Kim,et al.  Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study , 2012, The Lancet.

[22]  D. Sahani,et al.  Low-dose CT examinations in Crohn's disease: Impact on image quality, diagnostic performance, and radiation dose. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[23]  H. Brisse,et al.  Comment on: Are the studies on cancer risk from CT scans biased by indication? Elements of answer from a large-scale cohort study in France , 2015, British Journal of Cancer.

[24]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Hypothesis testing in noninferiority and equivalence MRMC ROC studies. , 2012, Academic radiology.

[25]  S. Altekruse,et al.  Hepatocellular carcinoma incidence, mortality, and survival trends in the United States from 1975 to 2005. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[26]  Joel G Fletcher,et al.  In defense of body CT. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[27]  Clinical impact of an adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm for detection of hypervascular liver tumours using a low tube voltage, high tube current MDCT technique , 2013, European Radiology.

[28]  B. Choi,et al.  Low tube voltage intermediate tube current liver MDCT: sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction algorithm for detection of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[29]  D. Sahani,et al.  Reducing Abdominal CT Radiation Dose With Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction Technique , 2010, Investigative radiology.

[30]  Nancy A Obuchowski,et al.  Contrast-to-noise ratio and low-contrast object resolution on full- and low-dose MDCT: SAFIRE versus filtered back projection in a low-contrast object phantom and in the liver. , 2012, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[31]  M. Shiung,et al.  Development and Validation of a Practical Lower-Dose-Simulation Tool for Optimizing Computed Tomography Scan Protocols , 2012, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[32]  Thomas L Toth,et al.  Detection and characterization of lesions on low-radiation-dose abdominal CT images postprocessed with noise reduction filters. , 2004, Radiology.

[33]  V. Mazzaferro,et al.  Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma , 2008, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[34]  D. Hough,et al.  Automatic selection of tube potential for radiation dose reduction in vascular and contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[35]  D. Morris,et al.  Surveillance-Detected Hepatic Metastases From Colorectal Cancer Had a Survival Advantage in Seven-Year Follow-Up , 2005, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[36]  David H. Kim,et al.  Abdominal CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging. , 2012, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[37]  William Pavlicek,et al.  Abdominal CT: comparison of low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection in 53 patients. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[38]  Individualized kV Selection and Tube Current Reduction in Excretory Phase Computed Tomography Urography: Potential for Radiation Dose Reduction and the Contribution of Iterative Reconstruction to Image Quality , 2013, Journal of computer assisted tomography.