Padole A, Sainani N, Lira D, Khawaja RDA, Pourjabbar S, Lo Gullo R, Otrakji A, Kalra MK. Assessment of sub-milli-sievert abdominal computed tomography with iterative reconstruction techniques of different vendors. World J Radiol 2016; 8(6): 618-627 [PMID: 27358690 DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v8.i6.618]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Atul Padole, MD, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 25 New Chardon St, 4th Floor, Boston, MA 02114, United States. apadole@mgh.harvard.edu
Research Domain of This Article
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
Article-Type of This Article
Prospective Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Radiol. Jun 28, 2016; 8(6): 618-627 Published online Jun 28, 2016. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v8.i6.618
Table 1 Mean age, weight, body mass index, and effective diameter for vendor A, B and C
Vendor A
Vendor B
Vendor C
Age (yr)
60 ± 13
63 ± 12
58 ± 13
weight (kg)
84 ± 18
75 ± 16
89 ± 24
BMI (kg/m2)
28 ± 5
27 ± 5
30 ± 8
Effective diameter (cm)
31 ± 4
30 ± 4
31 ± 5
Table 2 Mean computed tomography dose index volume, dose length product, and estimated effective dose for standard of care and reduced dose computed tomography for vendor A, B and C
Vendor A
Vendor B
Vendor C
P value
SD
RD
SD
RD
SD
RD
CTDIvol (mGy)
10 ± 3.4
1.2 ± 0.1
10 ± 3.4
1.3 ± 0.1
9 ± 5.3
1.4 ± 0.1
< 0.001
DLP (mGy*cm)
483 ± 187
64 ± 2
426 ± 204
61 ± 3
386 ± 259
61 ± 3
< 0.001
Estimated effective dose (mSv)
7 ± 3
0.9 ± 0.1
6 ± 3
0.9 ± 0.1
6 ± 4
0.9 ± 0.1
< 0.001
Table 3 Subjective image quality scores for reduced dose A-1, reduced dose A-2, and reduced dose A-3
A-1
A-2
A-3
Reader 1
Lesions
1 (7/24)
2 (16/24)
1 (10/24)
2 (13/24)
1 (7/24)
2 (15/24)
3 (1/24)
3 (1/24)
3 (2/24)
Liver margins
1 (18/22)
2 (4/22)
1 (20/22)
2 (2/22)
1 (17/22)
2 (5/22)
Liver parenchyma
1 (4/22)
2 (15/22)
1 (7/22)
2 (14/22)
1 (5/22)
2 (15/22)
3 (3/22)
3 (1/22)
3 (2/22)
Adrenals bowels
1 (7/22)
2 (15/22)
1 (11/22)
2 (11/22)
1 (8/22)
2 (14/22)
1 (7/22)
2 (14/22)
1 (10/22)
2 (12/22)
1 (8/22)
2 (14/22)
3 (1/23)
Reader 2
Lesions
1 (5/25)
2 (17/25)
1 (8/25)
2 (12/25)
1 (7/25)
2 (13/25)
3 (3/25)
3 (5/25)
3 (5/25)
Liver margins
1 (10/22)
2 (11/22)
1 (12/22)
2 (10/22)
1 (9/22)
2 (13/22)
3 (1/22)
Liver parenchyma
1 (2/22)
2 (8/22)
1 (2/22)
2 (10/22)
1 (2/22)
2 (10/22)
3 (12/22)
3 (10/22)
3 (10/22)
Adrenals
1 (7/22)
2 (12/22)
1 (9/22)
2 (11/22)
1 (7/22)
2 (13/22)
3 (3/22)
3 (2/22)
3 (2/22)
Bowels
1 (12/22)
2 (8/22)
1 (12/22)
2 (8/22)
1 (10/22)
2 (10/22)
3 (3/22)
3 (2/22)
3(2/22)
Table 4 Subjective image quality scores for reduced dose B-1, reduced dose B-2, and reduced dose B-3
B-1
B-2
B-3
Reader 1
Lesions
1 (4/27)
2 (22/27)
1 (4/27)
2 (19/27)
1 (7/27)
2 (18/27)
3 (1/27)
3 (4/27)
3 (2/27)
Liver margins
1 (14/22)
2 (8/22)
1 (12/22)
2 (10/22)
1 (16/22)
2 (6/22)
Liver parenchyma
1 (1/22)
2 (16/22)
1 (1/22)
2 (14/22)
1 (1/22)
2 (16/22)
3 (5/22)
3 (7/22)
3 (5/22)
Adrenals
1 (2/22)
2 (14/22)
1 (2/22)
2 (13/22)
1 (3/22)
2 (15/22)
3 (6/22)
3 (7/22)
3 (4/22)
Bowels
3 (7/23)
2 (15/22)
3 (7/23)
2 (15/22)
3 (6/23)
2 (16/22)
Reader 2
Lesions
1 (5/30)
2 (19/30)
1 (8/30)
2 (18/28)
1 (7/30)
2 (15/30)
3 (6/30)
3 (4/30)
3 (8/30)
Liver margins
1 (6/22)
2 (14/22)
1 (8/22)
2 (13/22)
1 (6/22)
2 (14/22)
3 (2/22)
3 (1/22)
3 (2/22)
Liver parenchyma
3 (17/22)
2 (5/22)
3 (16/22)
2 (6/22)
3 (18/22)
2 (4/22)
Adrenals
1 (3/22)
2 (10/22)
1 (4/22)
2 (11/22)
1 (2/22)
2 (9/22)
3 (9/22)
3 (7/22)
3 (11/22)
3 (4/22)
3 (1/22)
3 (5/22)
Bowels
1 (4/22)
2 (16/22)
1 (5/22)
2 (16/22)
1 (3/22)
2 (17/22)
3 (2/22)
3 (1/22)
3 (2/22)
Table 5 Subjective image quality scores for reduced dose C-1, reduced dose C-2, and reduced dose C-3
C-1
C-2
C-3
Reader 1
Lesions
1 (2/19)
2 (11/19)
1 (5/19)
2 (10/19)
1 (7/19)
2 (9/19)
3 (6/19)
3 (4/19)
3 (3/19)
Liver margins
1 (8/22)
2 (14/22)
1 (13/22)
2 (9/22)
1 (16/22)
2 (6/22)
Liver parenchyma
1 (1/22)
2 (13/22)
1 (2/22)
2 (14/22)
1 (2/22)
2 (17/22)
3 (8/22)
3 (6/22)
3 (3/22)
Adrenals
1 (4/22)
2 (13/22)
1 (5/22)
2 (14/22)
1 (7/22)
2 (12/22)
3 (5/22)
3 (3/22)
3 (3/22)
Bowels
1 (4/22)
2 (14/22)
1 (4/22)
2 (13/22)
1 (5/22)
2 (14/22)
3 (4/23)
3 (5/23)
3 (3/23)
Reader 2
Lesions
1 (6/20)
2 (9/20)
1 (7/20)
2 (10/20)
1 (13/20)
2 (6/20)
3 (5/20)
3 (3/20)
3 (1/20)
Liver margins
1 (6/22)
2 (12/22)
1 (7/22)
2 (11/22)
1 (9/22)
2 (11/22)
3 (4/22)
3 (4/22)
3 (2/22)
Liver parenchyma
1 (2/22)
2 (5/22)
1 (3/22)
2 (6/22)
1 (4/22)
2 (5/22)
3 (15/22)
3 (13/22)
3 (13/22)
Adrenals
1 (5/22)
2 (8/22)
1 (6/22)
2 (7/22)
1 (9/22)
2 (6/22)
3 (10/22)
3 (9/22)
3 (7/22)
Bowels
1 (10/22)
2 (10/22)
1 (12/22)
2 (8/22)
1 (13/22)
2 (8/22)
3 (2/22)
3 (2/22)
3 (1/22)
Table 6 Mean HU values and objective image noise in region of interest placed in liver for standard of care filtered back projection and reduced dose iterative reconstruction techniques
HU values
Objective image noise
Vendor A
SD FBP
104 ± 30
17 ± 3
RD A-1
93 ± 35
16 ± 4
RD A-2
97 ± 29
19 ± 4
RD A-3
98 ± 29 (P = 0.9)
24 ± 5 (P < 0.001)
Vendor B
SD FBP
101 ± 28
26 ± 5
RD B-1
100 ± 25
29 ± 5
RD B-2
98 ± 24
14 ± 3
RD B-3
107 ± 23 (P = 0.3)
33 ± 11 (P < 0.001)
Vendor C
SD FBP
103 ± 28
23 ± 7
RD C-1
97 ± 26
36 ± 18
RD C-2
97 ± 26
28 ± 14
RD C-3
98 ± 25 (P = 0.9)
23 ± 11 (P = 0.016)
Citation: Padole A, Sainani N, Lira D, Khawaja RDA, Pourjabbar S, Lo Gullo R, Otrakji A, Kalra MK. Assessment of sub-milli-sievert abdominal computed tomography with iterative reconstruction techniques of different vendors. World J Radiol 2016; 8(6): 618-627