4.5 Article

High-resolution CT with new model-based iterative reconstruction with resolution preference algorithm in evaluations of lung nodules: Comparison with conventional model-based iterative reconstruction and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 85, Issue 3, Pages 599-606

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.01.001

Keywords

Multidetector computed tomography; Iterative reconstruction; Image quality; Lung neoplasm; Solitary pulmonary nodule

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To compare the image quality of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) for evaluating lung nodules reconstructed with the new version of model-based iterative reconstruction and spatial resolution preference algorithm (MBIRn) vs. conventional model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIRc) and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR). Materials and methods: This retrospective clinical study was approved by our institutional review board and included 70 lung nodules in 58 patients (mean age, 71.2 +/- 10.9 years; 34 men and 24 women). HRCT of lung nodules were reconstructed using MBIRn, MBIRc and ASIR. Objective image noise was measured by placing the regions of interest on lung parenchyma. Two blinded radiologists performed subjective image analyses. Results: Significant improvements in the following points were observed in MBIRn compared with ASIR (p < 0.005): objective image noise (24.4 +/- 8.0 vs. 37.7 +/- 10.4), subjective image noise, streak artifacts, and adequateness for evaluating internal characteristics and borders of nodules. The sharpness of small vessels and bronchi and diagnostic acceptability with MBIRn were significantly better than with MBIRc and ASIR (p < 0.008). Conclusion: HRCT reconstructed with MBIRn provides diagnostically more acceptable images for the detailed analyses of lung nodules compared with MBIRc and ASIR. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available