Dose Reduction While Preserving Diagnostic Quality in Head CT: Advancing the Application of Iterative Reconstruction Using a Live Animal Model

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Geyer LL,
   3. Schoepf UJ,
   4. Meinel FG, et al

   . State of the art: iterative CT reconstruction techniques. Radiology 2015;276:339–57 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015132766 pmid:26203706

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Padole A,
   3. Khawaja RDA,
   4. Kalra MK, et al

   . CT radiation dose and iterative reconstruction techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;204:W384–92 doi:10.2214/AJR.14.13241 pmid:25794087

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Ghetti C,
   3. Palleri F,
   4. Serreli G, et al

   . Physical characterization of a new CT iterative reconstruction method operating in sinogram space. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2013;14:434 doi:10.1120/jacmp.v14i4.4347 pmid:23835395

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Solomon J,
   3. Mileto A,
   4. Ramirez-Giraldo JC, et al

   . Diagnostic performance of an advanced modeled iterative reconstruction algorithm for low-contrast detectability with a third-generation dual-source multidetector CT scanner: potential for radiation dose reduction in a multireader study. Radiology 2015;275:735–45 doi:10.1148/radiol.15142005 pmid:25751228

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Schindera ST,
   3. Odedra D,
   4. Raza SA, et al

   . Iterative reconstruction algorithm for CT: can radiation dose be decreased while low-contrast detectability is preserved? Radiology 2013;269:511–18 doi:10.1148/radiol.13122349 pmid:23788715

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Mieville FA,
   3. Gudinchet F,
   4. Brunelle F, et al

   . Iterative reconstruction methods in two different MDCT scanners: physical metrics and 4-alternative forced-choice detectability experiments: a phantom approach. Phys Med 2013;29:99–110 doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2011.12.004 pmid:22217444

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Jensen K,
   3. Martinsen ACT,
   4. Tingberg A, et al

   . Comparing five different iterative reconstruction algorithms for computed tomography in an ROC study. Eur Radiol 2014;24:2989–3002 doi:10.1007/s00330-014-3333-4 pmid:25048191

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Love A,
   3. Olsson ML,
   4. Siemund R, et al

   . Six iterative reconstruction algorithms in brain CT: a phantom study on image quality at different radiation dose levels. Br J Radiol 2013;86:20130388 doi:10.1259/bjr.20130388 pmid:24049128

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   2. Dobeli KL,
   3. Lewis SJ,
   4. Meikle SR, et al

   . Noise-reducing algorithms do not necessarily provide superior dose optimisation for hepatic lesion detection with multidetector CT. Br J Radiol 2013;86:20120500 doi:10.1259/bjr.20120500 pmid:23392194

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    2. Vorona GA,
    3. Zuccoli T,
    4. Sutcavage T, et al

    . The use of adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in pediatric head CT: a feasibility study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:205–211 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3122 pmid:22627796

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    2. Baskan O,
    3. Erol C,
    4. Ozbek H, et al

    . Effect of radiation dose reduction on image quality in adult head CT with noise-suppressing reconstruction system with a 256 slice MDCT. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2015;16:285 doi:10.1120/jacmp.v16i3.5360 pmid:26103494

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Singh S,
    3. Kalra MK,
    4. Hsieh J, et al

    . Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 2010;257:373–83 doi:10.1148/radiol.10092212 pmid:20829535

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    2. Baker ME,
    3. Dong F,
    4. Primak A, et al

    . Contrast-to-noise ratio and low-contrast object resolution on full- and low-dose MDCT: SAFIRE versus filtered back projection in a low-contrast object phantom and in the liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;199:8–18 doi:10.2214/AJR.11.7421 pmid:22733888

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Kilic K,
    3. Erbas G,
    4. Guryildirim M, et al

    . Lowering the dose in head CT using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:1578–82 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2585 pmid:21835946

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    2. Korn A,
    3. Fenchel M,
    4. Bender B, et al

    . Iterative reconstruction in head CT: image quality of routine and low-dose protocol in comparison with standard filtered back-projection. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:218–24 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2749 pmid:22033719

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    2. Alper S,
    3. Mohan P,
    4. Chaves I, et al

    . Image quality and radiation dose comparison between filtered back projection and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in non-contrast head CT studies. OMICS J Radiol 2013;2:7 doi:10.4172/2167-7964.1000147

    CrossRef
17. 17.↵
    2. Rapalino O,
    3. Kamalian S,
    4. Kamalian S, et al

    . Cranial CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction: improved image quality with concomitant radiation dose reduction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:609–15 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2826 pmid:22207302

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    2. Brodoefel H,
    3. Bender B,
    4. Schabel C, et al

    . Potential of combining iterative reconstruction with noise efficient detector design: aggressive dose reduction in head CT. Br J Radiol 2015;88:20140404 doi:10.1259/bjr.20140404 pmid:25827204

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Iyama Y,
    3. Nakaura T,
    4. Oda S, et al

    . Iterative reconstruction designed for brain CT: a correlative study with filtered back projection for the diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2017;41:884–90 doi:10.1097/RCT.0000000000000626 pmid:28448422

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Kataria B,
    3. Althen JN,
    4. Smedby O, et al

    . Assessment of image quality in abdominal CT: potential dose reduction with model-based iterative reconstruction. Eur Radiol 2018;28:2464–73 doi:10.1007/s00330-017-5113-4 pmid:29368163

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Pickhardt PJ,
    3. Lubner MG,
    4. Kim DH, et al

    . Abdominal CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;199:1266–74 doi:10.2214/AJR.12.9382 pmid:23169718

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    2. Kim HJ,
    3. Lee HK,
    4. Song H, et al

    . Reduction in radiation dose with reconstruction technique in the brain perfusion CT. Radiation Effects and Defects in Solids 2011;166:918–26 doi:10.1080/10420150.2011.618946

    CrossRef
23. 23.↵
    2. Zarelli M,
    3. Schwarz T,
    4. Puggioni A, et al

    . An optimized protocol for multislice computed tomography of the canine brain. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2014;55:387–92 doi:10.1111/vru.12144 pmid:24506077

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Zarb F,
    3. McEntee MF,
    4. Rainford L

    . CT radiation dose and image quality optimization using a porcine model. Radiol Technol 2013;85:127–36 pmid:24255137

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
25. 25.↵
    2. Ge G,
    3. Zhang J

    . Noise and texture properties for the optimization of CT protocols with iterative reconstruction algorithms. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. July 29 to August 2, 2018
26. 26.↵
    2. Pearce MS,
    3. Salotti JA,
    4. Little MP, et al

    . Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2012;380:499–505 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60815-0 pmid:22681860

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    2. Brenner DJ,
    3. Hall EJ

    . Cancer risks from CT scans: now we have data, what next? Radiology 2012;265:330–31 doi:10.1148/radiol.12121248 pmid:22915598

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    2. Miglioretti DL,
    3. Johnson E,
    4. Williams A, et al

    . Pediatric computed tomography and associated radiation exposure and estimated cancer risk. JAMA Pediatr 2013;167:700–07 doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.311 pmid:23754213

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. John SE,
    3. Lovell TJH,
    4. Opie NL, et al

    . The ovine motor cortex: a review of functional mapping and cytoarchitecture. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2017;80:306–15 doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.06.002 pmid:28595827

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Handley RR,
    3. Reid SJ,
    4. Patassini S, et al

    . Metabolic disruption identified in the Huntington's disease transgenic sheep model. Sci Rep 2016;6:20681 doi:10.1038/srep20681 pmid:26864449

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Oswald MJ,
    3. Palmer DN,
    4. Kay GW, et al

    . Glial activation spreads from specific cerebral foci and precedes neurodegeneration in presymptomatic ovine neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis (CLN6). Neurobiol Dis 2005;20:49–63 doi:10.1016/j.nbd.2005.01.025 pmid:16137566

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
32. 32.↵
    2. Laure B,
    3. Petraud A,
    4. Sury F, et al

    . Resistance of the sheep skull after a monocortical cranial graft harvest. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2012;40:261–65 doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2011.03.013 pmid:21482129

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Shridharani JK,
    3. Wood GW,
    4. Panzer MB, et al

    . Porcine head response to blast. Front Neurol 2012;3:70 doi:10.3389/fneur.2012.00070 pmid:22586417

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Dekaban AS

    . Changes in brain weights during the span of human life: relation of brain weights to body heights and body weights. Ann Neurol 1978;4:345–56 doi:10.1002/ana.410040410 pmid:727739

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
35. 35.↵
    2. Stiller W

    . Basics of iterative reconstruction methods in computed tomography: a vendor-independent overview. Eur J Radiol 2018;109:147–54 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.10.025 pmid:30527298

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    2. Mehta D,
    3. Bayraktar B

    . Iterative reconstruction techniques for spatial resolution improvements: phantom study. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of European Society of Radiology. Vienna, Austria. March 3–7, 2011