Can conclusions drawn from phantom-based image noise assessments be generalized to in vivo studies for the nonlinear model-based iterative reconstruction method?

PURPOSE Phantom-based objective image quality assessment methods are widely used in the medical physics community. For a filtered backprojection (FBP) reconstruction-based linear or quasilinear imaging system, the use of this methodology is well justified. Many key image quality metrics acquired with phantom studies can be directly applied to in vivo human subject studies. Recently, a variety of image quality metrics have been investigated for model-based iterative image reconstruction (MBIR) methods and several novel characteristics have been discovered in phantom studies. However, the following question remains unanswered: can certain results obtained from phantom studies be generalized to in vivo animal studies and human subject studies? The purpose of this paper is to address this question. METHODS One of the most striking results obtained from phantom studies is a novel power-law relationship between noise variance of MBIR (σ(2)) and tube current-rotation time product (mAs): σ(2) ∝ (mAs)(-0.4) [K. Li et al., "Statistical model based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) in clinical CT systems: Experimental assessment of noise performance," Med. Phys. 41, 041906 (15pp.) (2014)]. To examine whether the same power-law works for in vivo cases, experimental data from two types of in vivo studies were analyzed in this paper. All scans were performed with a 64-slice diagnostic CT scanner (Discovery CT750 HD, GE Healthcare) and reconstructed with both FBP and a MBIR method (Veo, GE Healthcare). An Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee-approved in vivo animal study was performed with an adult swine at six mAs levels (10-290). Additionally, human subject data (a total of 110 subjects) acquired from an IRB-approved clinical trial were analyzed. In this clinical trial, a reduced-mAs scan was performed immediately following the standard mAs scan; the specific mAs used for the two scans varied across human subjects and were determined based on patient size and clinical indications. The measurements of σ(2) were performed at different mAs by drawing regions-of-interest (ROIs) in the liver and the subcutaneous fat. By applying a linear least-squares regression, the β values in the power-law relationship σ(2) ∝ (mAs)(-β) were measured for the in vivo data and compared with the value found in phantom experiments. RESULTS For the in vivo swine study, an exponent of β = 0.43 was found for MBIR, and the coefficient of determination (R(2)) for the corresponding least-squares power-law regression was 0.971. As a reference, the β and R(2) values for FBP were found to be 0.98 and 0.997, respectively, from the same study, which are consistent with the well-known σ(2) ∝ (mAs)(-1.0) relationship for linear CT systems. For the human subject study, the measured β values for the MBIR images were 0.41 ± 0.12 in the liver and 0.37 ± 0.12 in subcutaneous fat. In comparison, the β values for the FBP images were 1.04 ± 0.10 in the liver and 0.97 ± 0.12 in subcutaneous fat. The β values of MBIR and FBP obtained from the in vivo studies were found to be statistically equivalent to the corresponding β values from the phantom study within an equivalency interval of [ - 0.1, 0.1] (p < 0.05); across MBIR and FBP, the difference in β was statistically significant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Despite the nonlinear nature of the MBIR method, the power-law relationship, σ(2) ∝ (mAs)(-0.4), found from phantom studies can be applied to in vivo animal and human subject studies.

[1]  Armando Manduca,et al.  Observer Performance in the Detection and Classification of Malignant Hepatic Nodules and Masses with CT Image-Space Denoising and Iterative Reconstruction. , 2015, Radiology.

[2]  C. McCollough,et al.  Technical Note: Measuring contrast- and noise-dependent spatial resolution of an iterative reconstruction method in CT using ensemble averaging. , 2015, Medical physics.

[3]  David H. Kim,et al.  Sub-milliSievert (sub-mSv) CT colonography: a prospective comparison of image quality and polyp conspicuity at reduced-dose versus standard-dose imaging , 2015, European Radiology.

[4]  J. Beregi,et al.  Dose reduction with iterative reconstruction: Optimization of CT protocols in clinical practice. , 2015, Diagnostic and interventional imaging.

[5]  Ke Li,et al.  Noise performance studies of model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) as a function of kV, mA and exposure level: Impact on radiation dose reduction and image quality , 2015, Medical Imaging.

[6]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of an Advanced Modeled Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm for Low-Contrast Detectability with a Third-Generation Dual-Source Multidetector CT Scanner: Potential for Radiation Dose Reduction in a Multireader Study. , 2015, Radiology.

[7]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  An Improved Index of Image Quality for Task-based Performance of CT Iterative Reconstruction across Three Commercial Implementations. , 2015, Radiology.

[8]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Assessment of the dose reduction potential of a model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm using a task-based performance metrology. , 2014, Medical physics.

[9]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Evaluating iterative reconstruction performance in computed tomography. , 2014, Medical physics.

[10]  David H. Kim,et al.  Prospective trial of the detection of urolithiasis on ultralow dose (sub mSv) noncontrast computerized tomography: direct comparison against routine low dose reference standard. , 2014, The Journal of urology.

[11]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Quantum noise properties of CT images with anatomical textured backgrounds across reconstruction algorithms: FBP and SAFIRE. , 2014, Medical physics.

[12]  Fabio Becce,et al.  Update on the non-prewhitening model observer in computed tomography for the assessment of the adaptive statistical and model-based iterative reconstruction algorithms , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Model-based CT performance assessment and optimization for iodinated and noniodinated imaging tasks as a function of kVp and body size. , 2014, Medical physics.

[14]  Yi Zhang,et al.  Correlation between human and model observer performance for discrimination task in CT , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

[15]  Matthew A Kupinski,et al.  Assessing image quality and dose reduction of a new x-ray computed tomography iterative reconstruction algorithm using model observers. , 2014, Medical physics.

[16]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Assessment of volumetric noise and resolution performance for linear and nonlinear CT reconstruction methods. , 2014, Medical physics.

[17]  J Y Vaishnav,et al.  Objective assessment of image quality and dose reduction in CT iterative reconstruction. , 2014, Medical physics.

[18]  Guang-Hong Chen,et al.  Statistical model based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) in clinical CT systems. Part II. Experimental assessment of spatial resolution performance. , 2014, Medical physics.

[19]  Ke Li,et al.  Statistical model based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) in clinical CT systems: experimental assessment of noise performance. , 2014, Medical physics.

[20]  Ke Li,et al.  Noise performance of statistical model based iterative reconstruction in clinical CT systems , 2014, Medical Imaging.

[21]  M. Goodsitt,et al.  Model-based iterative reconstruction: effect on patient radiation dose and image quality in pediatric body CT. , 2013, Radiology.

[22]  M. Robins,et al.  Volumetric quantification of lung nodules in CT with iterative reconstruction (ASiR and MBIR). , 2013, Medical physics.

[23]  Jean-Baptiste Thibault,et al.  Model-based iterative reconstruction versus adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction and filtered back projection in liver 64-MDCT: focal lesion detection, lesion conspicuity, and image noise. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[24]  Masaki Katsura,et al.  Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction Technique for Ultralow-Dose Chest CT: Comparison of Pulmonary Nodule Detectability With the Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction Technique , 2013, Investigative radiology.

[25]  Shuai Leng,et al.  Prediction of human observer performance in a 2-alternative forced choice low-contrast detection task using channelized Hotelling observer: impact of radiation dose and reconstruction algorithms. , 2013, Medical physics.

[26]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Are uniform phantoms sufficient to characterize the performance of iterative reconstruction in CT? , 2013, Medical Imaging.

[27]  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.

[28]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Quantitative comparison of noise texture across CT scanners from different manufacturers. , 2012, Medical physics.

[29]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Towards task-based assessment of CT performance: System and object MTF across different reconstruction algorithms. , 2012, Medical physics.

[30]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Relevance of MTF and NPS in quantitative CT: towards developing a predictable model of quantitative performance , 2012, Medical Imaging.

[31]  Jiang Hsieh,et al.  Analysis of noise power spectrum for linear and non-linear reconstruction algorithms for CT , 2011, 2011 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[32]  Guang-Hong Chen,et al.  Reduced image noise at low-dose multidetector CT of the abdomen with prior image constrained compressed sensing algorithm. , 2011, Radiology.

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

[34]  K. Phillips Power of the two one-sided tests procedure in bioequivalence , 1990, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics.

[35]  P. F. Judy,et al.  Phantoms for Performance Evaluation and Quality Assurance of CT Scanners , 1977 .