Iterative reconstructions in multiphasic CT imaging of the liver: qualitative and task-based analyses of image quality.

AIM: To evaluate the clinical benefits on image quality (IQ) of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) in multiphasic liver CT compared to filtered back-projection (FBP), in patients and on phantoms using a novel task-based metric. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Image data of 65 patients who underwent a routine multiphasic liver CT during a 1-month period were reconstructed with FBP, ASIR50, ASIR80, and MBIR. IQ was assessed qualitatively by ranking the most distal hepatic artery (HA) and portal vein (PV) visible; and quantitatively by measuring contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the liver parenchyma, HA and PV. IQ was compared between each reconstruction and correlated to CNR and detectability index (d') measurements computed on phantoms scanned with the same CT protocol as for patients. RESULTS: HA and PV were seen more distally on MBIR and ASIR80 compared to FBP (p≤0.001). The CNR correlated weakly between patient and phantom (r=0.76 and 0.80 for HA and PV, respectively), whereas d' correlated strongly with the division order of HA and PV (r=0.96 and 0.95, respectively). CONCLUSION: MBIR and ASIR significantly improve the IQ of multiphasic liver CT, especially through better distal detection of HA and PV, in agreement with the adapted task-based metric d' estimated on phantoms.

Breast tomosynthesis: Dosimetry and image quality assessment on phantom.

PURPOSE: To evaluate using phantom study the average glandular dose (AGD) and image quality in breast tomosynthesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was performed with a full-field digital mammography system (Mammomat Inspiration(®), Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) combined with tomosynthesis equipment (3D). For AGD evaluation, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) plates and a dosimeter were used to directly measure the absorbed doses in 2D and in 3D. The doses were then compared to the doses displayed on the equipment using the Mann-Whitney test. Three phantoms, accredited for 2D digital mammography (MTM 100, ACR RMI 156, BR3D), were imaged three times in 2D then in 3D. For each acquisition, the AGD was recorded. For image quality assessment, scores, defined by the rate of visible inserts, obtained for each acquisition both in 2D and in 3D, and for each phantom, were compared (Kruskall-Wallis and post-hoc Dunn tests). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the measured and displayed AGD, both in 2D and in 3D imaging (P>0.05). With identical acquisition parameters, AGD were significantly greater in 3D than in 2D P<0.01). For phantoms MTM 100 and ACR RMI 156, there was no significant difference between the rate of visible inserts in 2D and in 3D (P=0.06 and P=0.36, respectively). However for phantom BR3D, the rate was significantly higher in 3D than in 2D (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Doses are significantly greater in 3D than in 2D. With tomosynthesis, out of the three phantoms tested, only phantom BR3D showed a higher rate of visible inserts.