Woo Hyeon Lim , MD 1 , 2 , Young Hun Choi , MD , 1 , 2 , Ji Eun Park , MD 1 , Yeon Jin Cho , MD 1 , 2 , Seunghyun Lee , MD 1 , 2 , Jung-Eun Cheon , MD 1 , 2 , 3 , Woo Sun Kim , MD, PhD 1 , 2 , 3 , In-One Kim , MD, PhD 1 , 2 , 3 , Jong Hyo Kim , MD, PhD 2 , 4 , 5
23 August 2019
To compare image qualities between vendor-neutral and vendor-specific hybrid iterative reconstruction (IR) techniques for abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) in young patients.
In phantom study, we used an anthropomorphic pediatric phantom, age-equivalent to 5-year-old, and reconstructed CT data using traditional filtered back projection (FBP), vendor-specific and vendor-neutral IR techniques (ClariCT; ClariPI) in various radiation doses. Noise, low-contrast detectability and subjective spatial resolution were compared between FBP, vendor-specific (i.e., iDose1 to 5; Philips Healthcare), and vendor-neutral (i.e., ClariCT1 to 5) IR techniques in phantom. In 43 patients (median, 14 years; age range 1–19 years), noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and qualitative image quality scores of abdominopelvic CT were compared between FBP, iDose level 4 (iDose4), and ClariCT level 2 (ClariCT2), which showed most similar image quality to clinically used vendor-specific IR images (i.e., iDose4) in phantom study. Noise, CNR, and qualitative imaging scores were compared using one-way repeated measure analysis of variance.
In phantom study, ClariCT2 showed noise level similar to iDose4 (14.68–7.66 Hounsfield unit [HU] vs. 14.78–6.99 HU at CT dose index volume range of 0.8–3.8 mGy). Subjective low-contrast detectability and spatial resolution were similar between ClariCT2 and iDose4. In clinical study, ClariCT2 was equivalent to iDose4 for noise (14.26–17.33 vs. 16.01–18.90) and CNR (3.55–5.24 vs. 3.20–4.60) ( p > 0.05). For qualitative imaging scores, the overall image quality ([reader 1, reader 2]; 2.74 vs. 2.07, 3.02 vs. 2.28) and noise (2.88 vs. 2.23, 2.93 vs. 2.33) of ClariCT2 were superior to those of FBP ( p < 0.05), and not different from those of iDose4 (2.74 vs. 2.72, 3.02 vs. 2.98; 2.88 vs. 2.77, 2.93 vs. 2.86) ( p > 0.05).