Intraindividual Comparison of Image Quality Between Low-Dose and Ultra-Low-Dose Abdominal CT With Deep Learning Reconstruction and Standard-Dose Abdominal CT Using Dual-Split Scan.

IF 7 1区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Tae Young Lee, Jeong Hee Yoon, Jin Young Park, So Hyun Park, HeeSoo Kim, Chul-Min Lee, Yunhee Choi, Jeong Min Lee
{"title":"Intraindividual Comparison of Image Quality Between Low-Dose and Ultra-Low-Dose Abdominal CT With Deep Learning Reconstruction and Standard-Dose Abdominal CT Using Dual-Split Scan.","authors":"Tae Young Lee, Jeong Hee Yoon, Jin Young Park, So Hyun Park, HeeSoo Kim, Chul-Min Lee, Yunhee Choi, Jeong Min Lee","doi":"10.1097/RLI.0000000000001151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to intraindividually compare the conspicuity of focal liver lesions (FLLs) between low- and ultra-low-dose computed tomography (CT) with deep learning reconstruction (DLR) and standard-dose CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) from a single CT using dual-split scan in patients with suspected liver metastasis via a noninferiority design.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This prospective study enrolled participants who met the eligibility criteria at 2 tertiary hospitals in South Korea from June 2022 to January 2023. The criteria included (a) being aged between 20 and 85 years and (b) having suspected or known liver metastases. Dual-source CT scans were conducted, with the standard radiation dose divided in a 2:1 ratio between tubes A and B (67% and 33%, respectively). The voltage settings of 100/120 kVp were selected based on the participant's body mass index (<30 vs ≥30 kg/m2). For image reconstruction, MBIR was utilized for standard-dose (100%) images, whereas DLR was employed for both low-dose (67%) and ultra-low-dose (33%) images. Three radiologists independently evaluated FLL conspicuity, the probability of metastasis, and subjective image quality using a 5-point Likert scale, in addition to quantitative signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios. The noninferiority margins were set at -0.5 for conspicuity and -0.1 for detection.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred thirty-three participants (male = 58, mean body mass index = 23.0 ± 3.4 kg/m2) were included in the analysis. The low- and ultra-low- dose had a lower radiation dose than the standard-dose (median CT dose index volume: 3.75, 1.87 vs 5.62 mGy, respectively, in the arterial phase; 3.89, 1.95 vs 5.84 in the portal venous phase, P < 0.001 for all). Median FLL conspicuity was lower in the low- and ultra-low-dose scans compared with the standard-dose (3.0 [interquartile range, IQR: 2.0, 4.0], 3.0 [IQR: 1.0, 4.0] vs 3.0 [IQR: 2.0, 4.0] in the arterial phase; 4.0 [IQR: 1.0, 5.0], 3.0 [IQR: 1.0, 4.0] vs 4.0 [IQR: 2.0, 5.0] in the portal venous phases), yet within the noninferiority margin (P < 0.001 for all). FLL detection was also lower but remained within the margin (lesion detection rate: 0.772 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.727, 0.812], 0.754 [0.708, 0.795], respectively) compared with the standard-dose (0.810 [95% CI: 0.770, 0.844]). Sensitivity for liver metastasis differed between the standard- (80.6% [95% CI: 76.0, 84.5]), low-, and ultra-low-doses (75.7% [95% CI: 70.2, 80.5], 73.7 [95% CI: 68.3, 78.5], respectively, P < 0.001 for both), whereas specificity was similar (P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Low- and ultra-low-dose CT with DLR showed noninferior FLL conspicuity and detection compared with standard-dose CT with MBIR. Caution is needed due to a potential decrease in sensitivity for metastasis (clinicaltrials.gov/ NCT05324046).</p>","PeriodicalId":14486,"journal":{"name":"Investigative Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Investigative Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000001151","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to intraindividually compare the conspicuity of focal liver lesions (FLLs) between low- and ultra-low-dose computed tomography (CT) with deep learning reconstruction (DLR) and standard-dose CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) from a single CT using dual-split scan in patients with suspected liver metastasis via a noninferiority design.

Materials and methods: This prospective study enrolled participants who met the eligibility criteria at 2 tertiary hospitals in South Korea from June 2022 to January 2023. The criteria included (a) being aged between 20 and 85 years and (b) having suspected or known liver metastases. Dual-source CT scans were conducted, with the standard radiation dose divided in a 2:1 ratio between tubes A and B (67% and 33%, respectively). The voltage settings of 100/120 kVp were selected based on the participant's body mass index (<30 vs ≥30 kg/m2). For image reconstruction, MBIR was utilized for standard-dose (100%) images, whereas DLR was employed for both low-dose (67%) and ultra-low-dose (33%) images. Three radiologists independently evaluated FLL conspicuity, the probability of metastasis, and subjective image quality using a 5-point Likert scale, in addition to quantitative signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios. The noninferiority margins were set at -0.5 for conspicuity and -0.1 for detection.

Results: One hundred thirty-three participants (male = 58, mean body mass index = 23.0 ± 3.4 kg/m2) were included in the analysis. The low- and ultra-low- dose had a lower radiation dose than the standard-dose (median CT dose index volume: 3.75, 1.87 vs 5.62 mGy, respectively, in the arterial phase; 3.89, 1.95 vs 5.84 in the portal venous phase, P < 0.001 for all). Median FLL conspicuity was lower in the low- and ultra-low-dose scans compared with the standard-dose (3.0 [interquartile range, IQR: 2.0, 4.0], 3.0 [IQR: 1.0, 4.0] vs 3.0 [IQR: 2.0, 4.0] in the arterial phase; 4.0 [IQR: 1.0, 5.0], 3.0 [IQR: 1.0, 4.0] vs 4.0 [IQR: 2.0, 5.0] in the portal venous phases), yet within the noninferiority margin (P < 0.001 for all). FLL detection was also lower but remained within the margin (lesion detection rate: 0.772 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.727, 0.812], 0.754 [0.708, 0.795], respectively) compared with the standard-dose (0.810 [95% CI: 0.770, 0.844]). Sensitivity for liver metastasis differed between the standard- (80.6% [95% CI: 76.0, 84.5]), low-, and ultra-low-doses (75.7% [95% CI: 70.2, 80.5], 73.7 [95% CI: 68.3, 78.5], respectively, P < 0.001 for both), whereas specificity was similar (P > 0.05).

Conclusions: Low- and ultra-low-dose CT with DLR showed noninferior FLL conspicuity and detection compared with standard-dose CT with MBIR. Caution is needed due to a potential decrease in sensitivity for metastasis (clinicaltrials.gov/ NCT05324046).

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Investigative Radiology
Investigative Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
15.10
自引率
16.40%
发文量
188
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Investigative Radiology publishes original, peer-reviewed reports on clinical and laboratory investigations in diagnostic imaging, the diagnostic use of radioactive isotopes, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital subtraction angiography, and related modalities. Emphasis is on early and timely publication. Primarily research-oriented, the journal also includes a wide variety of features of interest to clinical radiologists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信