Evaluation of Abdominal Computed Tomography Image Quality Using a New Version of Vendor-Specific Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To qualitatively and quantitatively compare abdominal computed tomography (CT) images reconstructed with a new version of model-based iterative reconstruction (Veo 3.0; GE Healthcare) to those created with Veo 2.0. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board and was Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant. The raw data from 29 consecutive patients who had undergone CT abdomen scanning was used to reconstruct 4 sets of 3.75-mm axial images: Veo 2.0, Veo 3.0 standard, Veo 3.0 5% resolution preference (RP), and Veo 3.0 20% RP. A slice thickness optimization of 3.75 mm and texture feature was selected for Veo 3.0 reconstructions.The images were reviewed by 3 independent readers in a blinded, randomized fashion using a 5-point Likert scale and 5-point comparative scale.Multiple 2-dimensional circular regions of interest were defined for noise and contrast-to-noise ratio measurements. Line profiles were drawn across the 7 lp/cm bar pattern of the CatPhan 600 phantom for spatial resolution evaluation. RESULTS: The Veo 3.0 standard image set was scored better than Veo 2.0 in terms of artifacts (mean difference, 0.43; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.25-0.6; P < 0.0001), overall image quality (mean difference, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.62-1.13; P < 0.0001) and qualitative resolution (mean difference, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.69-1.1; P < 0.0001). Although the Veo 3.0 standard and RP05 presets were preferred across most categories, the Veo 3.0 RP20 series ranked best for bone detail. Image noise and spatial resolution increased along a spectrum with Veo 2.0 the lowest and RP20 the highest. CONCLUSION: Veo 3.0 enhances imaging evaluation relative to Veo 2.0; readers preferred Veo 3.0 image appearance despite the associated mild increases in image noise. These results provide suggested parameters to be used clinically and as a basis for future evaluations, such as focal lesion detection, in the oncology setting.

Searching for certainty: findings predictive of appendicitis in equivocal ultrasound exams.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound (US) is the preferred imaging modality for evaluating suspected pediatric appendicitis. However, borderline appendiceal enlargement or questionable inflammatory changes can confound interpretation and lead to equivocal exams. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine which findings on equivocal US exams are most predictive of appendicitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All US exams performed for suspected pediatric appendicitis from July 1, 2013, through July 9, 2014, were initially interpreted using a risk-stratified scoring system. Two blinded pediatric radiologists independently reviewed US exams designated as equivocal and recorded the following findings: increased wall thickness, loss of mural stratification, peri-appendiceal fat inflammation, peri-appendiceal fluid, appendicolith and maximum appendiceal diameter. A third pediatric radiologist resolved discrepancies. US features were correlated with the final diagnosis via multivariate analysis. RESULTS: During the study period, 162/3,750 (4.3%) children had US exams initially interpreted as equivocal (mean age 9.8 +/- 3.8 years). Five outpatients were lost to follow-up. Forty-eight of the remaining 157 (30.6%) children had an operative diagnosis of appendicitis. Findings significantly associated with appendicitis were loss of mural stratification (odds ratio [OR] = 6.7, P=0.035), peri-appendiceal fat inflammation (OR = 10.0, P<0.0001) and appendicolith (OR = 15.8, P=0.025). While appendiceal diameter tended to be larger in patients with appendicitis, the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Loss of mural stratification, peri-appendiceal fat inflammation and an appendicolith are significant predictors of appendicitis in children with otherwise equivocal US exams. While maximum appendiceal diameter is not statistically associated with appendicitis in our study, mean appendiceal diameter of 6.7 mm in those without appendicitis suggests that the customary upper normal limit of 6 mm is too sensitive.

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.