A New Algorithm for Automatically Calculating Noise, Spatial Resolution, and Contrast Image Quality Metrics: Proof-of-Concept and Agreement With Subjective Scores in Phantom and Clinical Abdominal CT.


Journal

Investigative radiology
ISSN: 1536-0210
Titre abrégé: Invest Radiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0045377

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 09 2023
Historique:
medline: 4 8 2023
pubmed: 1 2 2023
entrez: 31 1 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The aims of this study were to develop a proof-of-concept computer algorithm to automatically determine noise, spatial resolution, and contrast-related image quality (IQ) metrics in abdominal portal venous phase computed tomography (CT) imaging and to assess agreement between resulting objective IQ metrics and subjective radiologist IQ ratings. An algorithm was developed to calculate noise, spatial resolution, and contrast IQ parameters. The algorithm was subsequently used on 2 datasets of anthropomorphic phantom CT scans, acquired on 2 different scanners (n = 57 each), and on 1 dataset of patient abdominal CT scans (n = 510). These datasets include a range of high to low IQ: in the phantom dataset, this was achieved through varying scanner settings (tube voltage, tube current, reconstruction algorithm); in the patient dataset, lower IQ images were obtained by reconstructing 30 consecutive portal venous phase scans as if they had been acquired at lower mAs. Five noise, 1 spatial, and 13 contrast parameters were computed for the phantom datasets; for the patient dataset, 5 noise, 1 spatial, and 18 contrast parameters were computed. Subjective IQ rating was done using a 5-point Likert scale: 2 radiologists rated a single phantom dataset each, and another 2 radiologists rated the patient dataset in consensus. General agreement between IQ metrics and subjective IQ scores was assessed using Pearson correlation analysis. Likert scores were grouped into 2 categories, "insufficient" (scores 1-2) and "sufficient" (scores 3-5), and differences in computed IQ metrics between these categories were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test. The algorithm was able to automatically calculate all IQ metrics for 100% of the included scans. Significant correlations with subjective radiologist ratings were found for 4 of 5 noise ( R2 range = 0.55-0.70), 1 of 1 spatial resolution ( R2 = 0.21 and 0.26), and 10 of 13 contrast ( R2 range = 0.11-0.73) parameters in the phantom datasets and for 4 of 5 noise ( R2 range = 0.019-0.096), 1 of 1 spatial resolution ( R2 = 0.11), and 16 of 18 contrast ( R2 range = 0.008-0.116) parameters in the patient dataset. Computed metrics that significantly differed between "insufficient" and "sufficient" categories were 4 of 5 noise, 1 of 1 spatial resolution, 9 and 10 of 13 contrast parameters for phantom the datasets and 3 of 5 noise, 1 of 1 spatial resolution, and 10 of 18 contrast parameters for the patient dataset. The developed algorithm was able to successfully calculate objective noise, spatial resolution, and contrast IQ metrics of both phantom and clinical abdominal CT scans. Furthermore, multiple calculated IQ metrics of all 3 categories were in agreement with subjective radiologist IQ ratings and significantly differed between "insufficient" and "sufficient" IQ scans. These results demonstrate the feasibility and potential of algorithm-determined objective IQ. Such an algorithm should be applicable to any scan and may help in optimization and quality control through automatic IQ assessment in daily clinical practice.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36719964
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000954
pii: 00004424-990000000-00084
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

649-655

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: Siemens Healthineers provided the prototype software to perform this study (version 13.0.0.1, prototype software, Siemens Healthineers, Forchheim, Germany). In addition, the following authors declare relationships with the following companies: C. Mihl and B. Martens receive personal fees (speakers bureau) from Bayer, all outside the submitted work. J.E. Wildberger reports institutional grants from Bard, Bayer, Boston, Brainlab, GE, Philips, and Siemens and personal fees (speakers bureau) from Bayer and Siemens, all outside the submitted work.

Références

Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med . 2007;357:2277–2284.
Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Johnson E, et al. Use of diagnostic imaging studies and associated radiation exposure for patients enrolled in large integrated health care systems, 1996–2010. JAMA . 2012;307:2400–2409.
Lell MM, Kachelrieß M. Developments in computed tomography high speed, low dose, deep learning, multienergy. Invest Radiol . 2020;55:8–19.
Jeukens CRLPN, Boere H, Wagemans BAJM, et al. Probability of receiving a high cumulative radiation dose and primary clinical indication of CT examinations: a 5-year observational cohort study. BMJ Open . 2021;11:e041883.
Rehani MM, Hauptmann M. Estimates of the number of patients with high cumulative doses through recurrent CT exams in 35 OECD countries. Phys Med . 2020;76:173–176.
Lumbreras B, Salinas JM, Gonzalez-Alvarez I. Cumulative exposure to ionising radiation from diagnostic imaging tests: a 12-year follow-up population-based analysis in Spain. BMJ Open . 2019;9:e030905.
Euratom. Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM. 2014. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02013L0059-20140117&from=EN . Accessed July 13, 2022.
ICRP. Managing patient dose in computed tomography. A report of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP . 2000;30:7–45.
Song JS, Lee JM, Sohn JY, et al. Hybrid iterative reconstruction technique for liver CT scans for image noise reduction and image quality improvement: evaluation of the optimal iterative reconstruction strengths. Radiol Med . 2015;120:259–267.
AAPM. Performance Evaluation of Computed Tomography Systems . Alexandria, VA: American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 2019. Available at: https://aapm.org/pubs/reports/detail.asp?docid=186 . Accessed July 13, 2022.
Verdun FR, Racine D, Ott JG, et al. Image quality in CT: from physical measurements to model observers. Phys Med . 2015;31:823–843.
Mileto A, Guimaraes LS, McCollough CH, et al. State of the art in abdominal CT: the limits of iterative reconstruction algorithms. Radiology . 2019;293:491–503.
Noferini L, Taddeucci A, Bartolini M, et al. CT image quality assessment by a channelized Hotelling observer (CHO): application to protocol optimization. Phys Med . 2016;32:1717–1723.
Yu L, Chen B, Kofler JM, et al. Correlation between a 2D channelized Hotelling observer and human observers in a low-contrast detection task with multislice reading in CT. Med Phys . 2017;44:3990–3999.
Zhou W, Michalak GJ, Weaver JM, et al. A universal protocol for abdominal CT examinations performed on a photon-counting detector CT system: a feasibility study. Invest Radiol . 2020;55:226–232.
Racine D, Mergen V, Viry A, et al. Photon-counting detector CT with quantum iterative reconstruction, impact on liver lesion detection and radiation dose reduction [published online ahead of print September 12, 2022]. Invest Radiol . doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000925.
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000925
Kortesniemi M, Schenkel Y, Salli E. Automatic image quality quantification and mapping with an edge-preserving mask-filtering algorithm. Acta Radiol . 2008;49:45–55.
Franck C, De Crop A, De Roo B, et al. Evaluation of automatic image quality assessment in chest CT—a human cadaver study. Phys Med . 2017;36:32–37.
Christianson O, Winslow J, Frush DP, et al. Automated technique to measure noise in clinical CT examinations. AJR Am J Roentgenol . 2015;205:W93–W99.
Malkus A, Szczykutowicz TP. A method to extract image noise level from patient images in CT. Med Phys . 2017;44:2173–2184.
Sanders J, Hurwitz L, Samei E. Patient-specific quantification of image quality: an automated method for measuring spatial resolution in clinical CT images. Med Phys . 2016;43:5330–5338.
Ott JG, Becce F, Monnin P, et al. Update on the non-prewhitening model observer in computed tomography for the assessment of the adaptive statistical and model-based iterative reconstruction algorithms. Phys Med Biol . 2014;59:4047–4064.
Cheng Y, Abadi E, Smith TB, et al. Validation of algorithmic CT image quality metrics with preferences of radiologists. Med Phys . 2019;46:4837–4846.
MathWorks. Savitzky-Golay filtering. 2020. Available at: https://nl.mathworks.com/help/signal/ref/sgolayfilt.html . Accessed September 3, 2021.
MathWorks. Prominence. 2020. Available at: https://nl.mathworks.com/help/signal/ug/prominence.html . Accessed September 3, 2021.
Timischl F. The contrast-to-noise ratio for image quality evaluation in scanning electron microscopy. Scanning . 2015;37:54–62.
Martens B, Bosschee JGA, Van Kuijk SMJ, et al. Finding the optimal tube current and iterative reconstruction strength in liver imaging; two needles in one haystack. PLoS One . 2022;17:e0266194.
Ellmann S, Kammerer F, Brand M, et al. A novel pairwise comparison-based method to determine radiation dose reduction potentials of iterative reconstruction algorithms, exemplified through circle of Willis computed tomography angiography. Invest Radiol . 2016;51:331–339.
Martens B, Gregor J, Mihl C, et al. Individualized scan protocols in abdominal computed tomography, radiation versus contrast media dose optimization. Invest Radiol . 2022;57:353–358.
Tilman E, O’Doherty J, Schoepf UJ, et al. Reduced iodinated contrast media administration in coronary CT angiography on a clinical photon-counting detector CT system: a phantom study using a dynamic circulation model [published online ahead of print September 13, 2022]. Invest Radiol . doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000911.
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000911
Rose S, Viggiano B, Bour R, et al. Applying a new CT quality metric in radiology: how CT pulmonary angiography repeat rates compare across institutions. J Am Coll Radiol . 2021;18:962–968.

Auteurs

Cécile R L P N Jeukens (CRLPN)

From the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht.

Emmeline Laupman (E)

Department of Radiology, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, the Netherlands.

Estelle C Nijssen (EC)

From the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH