Deep learning image reconstruction for quality assessment of iodine concentration in computed tomography: A phantom study

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Jeon, Pil-Hyun^a | Lee, Chang-Lae^{b; *}

Affiliations: [a] Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju Severance Christian Hospital, Wonju-Si, Gangwon-Do, Republic of Korea | [b] Health & Medical Equipment Business Unit, Samsung Electronics, Suwon-Si, Gyeonggi-Do, Republic of Korea

Correspondence: [*] Corresponding author: Chang-Lae Lee, 129, Samsung-Ro, Yeongtong-Gu, Suwon-Si, Gyeonggi-Do, 16677, Republic of Korea. Tel.: +82 31 200 6890; Fax: +82 31 200 6723; E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract: BACKGROUND:Recently, deep learning reconstruction (DLR) technology aiming to improve image quality with minimal radiation dose has been applied not only to pediatric scans, but also to computed tomography angiography (CTA). OBJECTIVE:To evaluate image quality characteristics of filtered back projection (FBP), hybrid iterative reconstruction [Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction 3D (AIDR 3D)], and DLR (AiCE) using different iodine concentrations and scan parameters. METHODS:Phantoms with eight iodine concentrations (ranging from 1.2 to 25.9 mg/mL) located at the edge of a cylindrical water phantom with a diameter of 19 cm were scanned. Data were reconstructed with FBP, AIDR 3D, and AiCE using various scan parameters of tube current and voltage using a 320 row-detector CT scanner. Data obtained using different reconstruction techniques were quantitatively compared by analyzing Hounsfield units (HU), noise, and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs). RESULTS:HU values of FBP and AIDR 3D were constant even when the iodine concentration was changed, whereas AiCE showed the highest HU value when the iodine concentration was low, but the HU value reversed when the iodine concentration exceeded a certain value. In the AIDR 3D and AiCE, the noise decreased as the tube current increased, and the change in noise when the iodine concentration was inconsistent. AIDR 3D and AiCE yielded better noise reduction rates than with FBP at a low tube current. The noise reduction rate of AIDR 3D and AiCE compared to that of FBP showed characteristics ranging from 7% to 35%, and the noise reduction rate of AiCE compared to that of AIDR 3D ranged from 2.0% to 13.3%. CONCLUSIONS:The evaluated reconstruction techniques showed different image quality characteristics (HU value, noise, and CNR) according to dose and scan parameters, and users must consider these results and characteristics before performing patient scans.

Keywords: Deep learning reconstruction, CT angiography, image quality, filtered back projection, hybrid iterative reconstruction

DOI: 10.3233/XST-221356

Journal: Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 409-422, 2023