Third version of vendor-specific model-based iterativereconstruction (Veo 3.0): evaluation of CT image quality in the abdomen using new noise reduction presets and varied slice optimization.

OBJECTIVE To qualitatively and quantitatively compare abdominal CT images reconstructed with a newversion of model-based iterative reconstruction (Veo 3.0; GE Healthcare Waukesha, WI) utilizing varied presetsof resolution preference, noise reduction and slice optimization. METHODS This retrospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board and was Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant. The raw datafrom 30 consecutive patients who had undergone CT abdomen scanning were used to reconstructfour clinical presets of 3.75mm axial images using Veo 3.0: 5% resolution preference (RP05n), 5%noise reduction (NR05) and 40% noise reduction (NR40) with new 3.75mm "sliceoptimization," as well as one set using RP05 with conventional 0.625mm "slice optimization" (RP05c). The images were reviewed by two independent readers in a blinded, randomized manner using a 5-point Likert scale as well as a 5-point comparative scale. Multiple two-dimensional circular regions of interest were defined for noise and contrast-to-noise ratio measurements. Line profiles were drawn across the 7 lp cm-1 bar pattern of the Catphan 600 phantom for evaluation of spatial resolution. RESULTS The NR05 image set was ranked as the best series in overall image quality (mean difference inrank 0.48, 95% CI [0.081-0.88], p = 0.01) and with specific reference to liver evaluation (meandifference 0.46, 95% CI [0.030-0.89], p = 0.03), when compared with the secondbest series ineach category. RP05n was ranked as the best for bone evaluation. NR40 was ranked assignificantly inferior across all assessed categories. Although the NR05 and RP05c image setshad nearly the same contrast-to-noise ratio and spatial resolution, NR05 was generally preferred. Image noise and spatial resolution increased along a spectrum with RP05n the highest and NR40the lowest. Compared to RP05n, the average noise was 21.01% lower for NR05, 26.88%lower for RP05c and 50.86% lower for NR40. CONCLUSION Veo 3.0 clinical presets allow for selection of image noise and spatial resolution balance; for contrast-enhanced CT evaluation of the abdomen, the 5% noise reduction preset with 3.75 mm slice optimization (NR05) was generally ranked superior qualitatively and, relative to other series, was in the middle of the spectrum with reference to image noise and spatial resolution. Advances in knowledge: To our knowledge, this is the first study of Veo 3.0 noise reduction presets and varied slice optimization. This study provides insight into the behaviour of slice optimization and documents the degree of noise reduction and spatial resolution changes that users can expect across various Veo 3.0 clinical presets. These results provide important parameters to guide preset selection for both clinical and research purposes.