To evaluate the performance of deep learning image reconstruction (DLIR) algorithm in dual-energy spectral CT (DEsCT) as a function of radiation dose and image energy level, in comparison with filtered-back-projection (FBP) and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V (ASIR-V) algorithms.
METHODS:
An ACR464 phantom was scanned with DEsCT at four dose levels (3.5 mGy, 5 mGy, 7.5 mGy, and 10 mGy). Virtual monochromatic images were reconstructed at five energy levels (40 keV, 50 keV, 68 keV, 74 keV, and 140 keV) using FBP, 50% and 100% ASIR-V, DLIR at low (DLIR-L), medium (DLIR-M), and high (DLIR-H) settings. The noise power spectrum (NPS), task-based transfer function (TTF) and detectability index (d’) were computed and compared among reconstructions.
RESULTS:
NPS area and noise increased as keV decreased, with DLIR having slower increase than FBP and ASIR-V, and DLIR-H having the lowest values. DLIR had the best 40 keV/140 keV noise ratio at various energy levels, DLIR showed higher TTF (50%) than ASIR-V for all materials, especially for the soft tissue-like polystyrene insert, and DLIR-M and DLIR-H provided higher d’ than DLIR-L, ASIR-V and FBP in all dose and energy levels. As keV increases, d’ increased for acrylic insert, and d’ of the 50 keV DLIR-M and DLIR-H images at 3.5 mGy (7.39 and 8.79, respectively) were higher than that (7.20) of the 50 keV ASIR-V50% images at 10 mGy.
CONCLUSIONS:
DLIR provides better noise containment for low keV images in DEsCT and higher TTF(50%) for the polystyrene insert over ASIR-V. DLIR-H has the lowest image noise and highest detectability in all dose and energy levels. DEsCT 50 keV images with DLIR-M and DLIR-H show potential for 65% dose reduction over ASIR-V50% withhigher d’.
OhligerM.A., Quantitative Dual-Energy CT and Crohn Disease, Radiology301 (2021), 152–153.
2.
ForghaniR., De ManB. and GuptaR., Dual-Energy Computed Tomography: Physical Principles, Approaches to Scanning, Usage, and Implementation: Part 1, Neuroimaging Clin N Am27 (2017), 371–384.
3.
ForghaniR., De ManB. and GuptaR., Dual-Energy Computed Tomography: Physical Principles, Approaches to Scanning, Usage, and Implementation: Part 2, Neuroimaging Clin N Am27 (2017), 385–400.
4.
BorgesA.P., AntunesC. and Curvo-SemedoL., Pros and Cons of Dual-Energy CT Systems: “One Does Not Fit All”, Tomography9 (2023), 195–216.
5.
ZhuL.H., WangF.N., WangY.W., ChengQ.H. and ZhouJ.J., Differentiation Between Solitary Pulmonary Inflammatory Lesions and Solitary Cancer Using Gemstone Spectral Imaging, J Comput Assist Tomogr46 (2022), 300–307.
6.
GarnettR., A comprehensive review of dual-energy and multi-spectral computed tomography, Clin Imaging67 (2020), 160–169.
7.
LiM., ZhengX., GaoF., XiaoL. and HuaY., Spectral CT imaging of intranodular hemorrhage in cases with challenging benign thyroid nodules, Radiol Med121 (2016), 279–290.
8.
WagnerP.P., RouxJ.P., ChuzelQ., et al., Dual-energy CT hybridation and kernel processing effects on the estimation of bone mineral mass and density: a calcination study on ex vivo human femur, Osteoporos Int33 (2022), 909–920.
9.
OhanaM., LabaniA., SeveracF., et al., Single source dual energy CT: What is the optimal monochromatic energy level for the analysis of the lung parenchyma?Eur J Radiol88 (2017), 163–170.
10.
KanalK.M., ButlerP.F., ChatfieldM.B., et al., U.S. Diagnostic Reference Levels and Achievable Doses for 10 Pediatric CT Examinations, Radiology302 (2022), 164–174.
11.
KimI., KangH., YoonH.J., ChungB.M. and ShinN.Y., Deep learning-based image reconstruction for brain CT: improved image quality compared with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-Veo (ASIR-V), Neuroradiology63 (2021), 905–912.
12.
BernardA., CombyP.O., LemogneB., et al., Deep learning reconstruction versus iterative reconstruction for cardiac CT angiography in a stroke imaging protocol: reduced radiation dose and improved image quality, Quant Imaging Med Surg11 (2021), 392–401.
13.
HataA., YanagawaM., YoshidaY., et al., The image quality of deep-learning image reconstruction of chest CT images on a mediastinal window setting, Clin Radiol76 (2021), 155.e115–155.e123.
14.
FranckC., ZhangG., DeakP. and ZancaF., Preserving image texture while reducing radiation dose with a deep learning image reconstruction algorithm in chest CT: A phantom study, Phys Med81 (2021), 86–93.
15.
GreffierJ., HamardA., PereiraF., et al., Image quality and dose reduction opportunity of deep learning image reconstruction algorithm for CT: a phantom study, Eur Radiol30 (2020), 3951–3959.
16.
SunJ., LiH., LiJ., et al., Improving the image quality of pediatric chest CT angiography with low radiation dose and contrast volume using deep learning image reconstruction, Quant Imaging Med Surg11 (2021), 3051–3058.
17.
BradyS.L., TroutA.T., SomasundaramE., AntonC.G., LiY. and DillmanJ.R., Improving Image Quality and Reducing Radiation Dose for Pediatric CT by Using Deep Learning Reconstruction, Radiology298 (2021), 180–188.
18.
ZhongJ., WangL., ShenH., et al., Improving lesion conspicuity in abdominal dual-energy CT with deep learning image reconstruction: a prospective study with five readers, Eur Radiol33 (2023), 5331–5343.
19.
ZhongJ., ShenH., ChenY., et al., Evaluation of Image Quality and Detectability of Deep Learning Image Reconstruction (DLIR) Algorithm in Single- and Dual-energy CT, J Digit Imaging36 (2023), 1390–1407.
20.
ChuB., GanL., ShenY., et al., A Deep Learning Image Reconstruction Algorithm for Improving Image Quality and Hepatic Lesion Detectability in Abdominal Dual-Energy Computed Tomography: Preliminary Results, J Digit Imaging (2023), 10.1007/s10278-023-00893-y.
21.
SolomonJ., MarinD., Roy ChoudhuryK.,
PatelB. and
SameiE., Effect of Radiation Dose Reduction and Reconstruction Algorithm on Image Noise, Contrast, Resolution, and Detectability of Subtle Hypoattenuating Liver Lesions at Multidetector CT: Filtered Back Projection versus a Commercial Model-based Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm, Radiology284 (2017), 777–787.
22.
KojimaT., ShirasakaT., KondoM., et al., A novel fast kilovoltage switching dual-energy CT with deep learning: Accuracy of CT number on virtual monochromatic imaging and iodine quantification, Phys Med81 (2021), 253–261.
23.
McColloughC.H., YuL., KoflerJ.M., et al., Degradation of CT Low-Contrast Spatial Resolution Due to the Use of Iterative Reconstruction and Reduced Dose Levels, Radiology276 (2015), 499–506.
24.
SameiE., BakalyarD., BoedekerK.L., et al., Performance evaluation of computed tomography systems: Summary of AAPM Task Group 233, Med Phys46 (2019), e735–e756.
25.
KijewskiM.F. and JudyP.F., The noise power spectrum of CT images, Phys Med Biol32 (1987), 565–575.
26.
SolomonJ.B., ChristiansonO. and SameiE., Quantitative comparison of noise texture across CT scanners from different manufacturers, Med Phys39 (2012), 6048–6055.
27.
GhettiC., PalleriF., SerreliG., OrtenziaO. and RuffiniL., Physical characterization of a new CT iterative reconstruction method operating in sinogram space, J Appl Clin Med Phys14 (2013), 4347.
28.
DollyS., ChenH.C., AnastasioM., MuticS. and LiH., Practical considerations for noise power spectra estimation for clinical CT scanners, J Appl Clin Med Phys17 (2016), 392–407.
29.
BoedekerK.L. and McNitt-GrayM.F., Application of the noise power spectrum in modern diagnostic MDCT: part II. Noise power spectra and signal to noise, Phys Med Biol52 (2007), 4047–4061.
30.
RichardS., HusarikD.B., YadavaG., MurphyS.N. and SameiE., Towards task-based assessment of CT performance: system and object MTF across different reconstruction algorithms, Med Phys39 (2012), 4115–4122.
31.
SameiE. and RichardS., Assessment of the dose reduction potential of a model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm using a task-based performance metrology, Med Phys42 (2015), 314–323.
32.
LiK., TangJ. and ChenG.H., Statistical model based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) in clinical CT systems: experimental assessment of noise performance, Med Phys41 (2014), 041906.
33.
RacineD., BecceF., ViryA., et al., Task-based characterization of a deep learning image reconstruction and comparison with filtered back-projection and a partial model-based iterative reconstruction in abdominal CT: A phantom study, Phys Med76 (2020), 28–37.
34.
GreffierJ., FrandonJ., HamardA., et al., Impact of iterative reconstructions on image quality and detectability of focal liver lesions in low-energy monochromatic images, Phys Med77 (2020), 36–42.
35.
GreffierJ., FrandonJ., Si-MohamedS., et al., Comparison of two deep learning image reconstruction algorithms in chest CT images: A task-based image quality assessment on phantom data, Diagn Interv Imaging103 (2022), 21–30.
36.
GreffierJ., ViryA., BarbotteauY., et al., Phantom task-based image quality assessment of three generations of rapid kV-switching dual-energy CT systems on virtual monoenergetic images, Med Phys49 (2022), 2233–2244.
