SU-F-I-49: Vendor-Independent, Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction On a Rotating Grid with Coordinate-Descent Optimization for CT Imaging Investigations

Abstract Objectives To evaluate image quality and reconstruction times of a commercial deep learning reconstruction algorithm (DLR) compared to hybrid-iterative reconstruction (Hybrid-IR) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) algorithms for cerebral non-contrast CT (NCCT). Methods Cerebral NCCT acquisitions of 50 consecutive patients were reconstructed using DLR, Hybrid-IR and MBIR with a clinical CT system. Image quality, in terms of six subjective characteristics (noise, sharpness, grey-white matter differentiation, artefacts, natural appearance and overall image quality), was scored by five observers. As objective metrics of image quality, the noise magnitude and signal-difference-to-noise ratio (SDNR) of the grey and white matter were calculated. Mean values for the image quality characteristics scored by the observers were estimated using a general linear model to account for multiple readers. The estimated means for the reconstruction methods were pairwise compared. Calculated measures were compared using paired t tests. Results For all image quality characteristics, DLR images were scored significantly higher than MBIR images. Compared to Hybrid-IR, perceived noise and grey-white matter differentiation were better with DLR, while no difference was detected for other image quality characteristics. Noise magnitude was lower for DLR compared to Hybrid-IR and MBIR (5.6, 6.4 and 6.2, respectively) and SDNR higher (2.4, 1.9 and 2.0, respectively). Reconstruction times were 27 s, 44 s and 176 s for Hybrid-IR, DLR and MBIR respectively. Conclusions With a slight increase in reconstruction time, DLR results in lower noise and improved tissue differentiation compared to Hybrid-IR. Image quality of MBIR is significantly lower compared to DLR with much longer reconstruction times. Key Points • Deep learning reconstruction of cerebral non-contrast CT results in lower noise and improved tissue differentiation compared to hybrid-iterative reconstruction. • Deep learning reconstruction of cerebral non-contrast CT results in better image quality in all aspects evaluated compared to model-based iterative reconstruction. • Deep learning reconstruction only needs a slight increase in reconstruction time compared to hybrid-iterative reconstruction, while model-based iterative reconstruction requires considerably longer processing time.

Download Full-text

Model-based reconstruction algorithm in the detection of acute trauma-related lesions in brain CT examinations

The Neuroradiology Journal ◽

10.1177/19714009211008751 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 197140092110087

Author(s):

Andrea De Vito ◽

Cesare Maino ◽

Sophie Lombardi ◽

Maria Ragusi ◽

Cammillo Talei Franzesi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Image Quality ◽

Iterative Reconstruction ◽

Signal To Noise Ratio ◽

Reconstruction Algorithm ◽

Signal To Noise ◽

Subjective Image Quality ◽

Model Based ◽

Hybrid Iterative Reconstruction ◽

Noise Ratio ◽

Enhanced Computed Tomography

Background and purpose To evaluate the added value of a model-based reconstruction algorithm in the assessment of acute traumatic brain lesions in emergency non-enhanced computed tomography, in comparison with a standard hybrid iterative reconstruction approach. Materials and methods We retrospectively evaluated a total of 350 patients who underwent a 256-row non-enhanced computed tomography scan at the emergency department for brain trauma. Images were reconstructed both with hybrid and model-based iterative algorithm. Two radiologists, blinded to clinical data, recorded the presence, nature, number, and location of acute findings. Subjective image quality was performed using a 4-point scale. Objective image quality was determined by computing the signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio. The agreement between the two readers was evaluated using k-statistics. Results A subjective image quality analysis using model-based iterative reconstruction gave a higher detection rate of acute trauma-related lesions in comparison to hybrid iterative reconstruction (extradural haematomas 116 vs. 68, subdural haemorrhages 162 vs. 98, subarachnoid haemorrhages 118 vs. 78, parenchymal haemorrhages 94 vs. 64, contusive lesions 36 vs. 28, diffuse axonal injuries 75 vs. 31; all P<0.001). Inter-observer agreement was moderate to excellent in evaluating all injuries (extradural haematomas k=0.79, subdural haemorrhages k=0.82, subarachnoid haemorrhages k=0.91, parenchymal haemorrhages k=0.98, contusive lesions k=0.88, diffuse axonal injuries k=0.70). Quantitatively, the mean standard deviation of the thalamus on model-based iterative reconstruction images was lower in comparison to hybrid iterative one (2.12 ± 0.92 vsa 3.52 ± 1.10; P=0.030) while the contrast-to-noise ratio and signal-to-noise ratio were significantly higher (contrast-to-noise ratio 3.06 ± 0.55 vs. 1.55 ± 0.68, signal-to-noise ratio 14.51 ± 1.78 vs. 8.62 ± 1.88; P<0.0001). Median subjective image quality values for model-based iterative reconstruction were significantly higher ( P=0.003). Conclusion Model-based iterative reconstruction, offering a higher image quality at a thinner slice, allowed the identification of a higher number of acute traumatic lesions than hybrid iterative reconstruction, with a significant reduction of noise.

Download Full-text