Advanced Modeled Iterative Reconstruction in Low-Tube-Voltage Contrast-Enhanced Neck CT: Evaluation of Objective and Subjective Image Quality

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Dammann F,
   3. Bootz F,
   4. Cohnen M, et al

   . Diagnostic imaging modalities in head and neck disease. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2014;111:417–23 doi:10.3238/arztebl.2014.0417 pmid:24980674

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Gonzalez-Beicos A,
   3. Nunez D

   . Imaging of acute head and neck infections. Radiol Clin North Am 2012;50:73–83 doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2011.08.004 pmid:22099488

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Griauzde J,
   3. Srinivasan A

   . Imaging of vascular lesions of the head and neck. Radiol Clin North Am 2015;53:197–213 doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2014.09.001 pmid:25476181

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Scholtz JE,
   3. Kaup M,
   4. Kraft J, et al

   . Objective and subjective image quality of primary and recurrent squamous cell carcinoma on head and neck low-tube-voltage 80-kVp computed tomography. Neuroradiology 2015;57:645–51 doi:10.1007/s00234-015-1512-x pmid:25808122

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Wichmann JL,
   3. Kraft J,
   4. Nöske EM, et al

   . Low-tube-voltage 80-kVp neck CT: evaluation of diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:2376–81 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4052 pmid:25104285

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   2. Schulz B,
   3. Potente S,
   4. Zangos S, et al

   . Ultra-low dose dual-source high-pitch computed tomography of the paranasal sinus: diagnostic sensitivity and radiation dose. Acta Radiol 2012;53:435–40 doi:10.1258/ar.2012.110579 pmid:22517983

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   2. Greess H,
   3. Wolf H,
   4. Baum U, et al

   . Dose reduction in computed tomography by attenuation-based on-line modulation of tube current: evaluation of six anatomical regions. Eur Radiol 2000;10:391–94 doi:10.1007/s003300050062 pmid:10663775

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   2. Papadakis AE,
   3. Perisinakis K,
   4. Damilakis J

   . Automatic exposure control in pediatric and adult multidetector CT examinations: a phantom study on dose reduction and image quality. Med Phys 2008;35:4567–76 doi:10.1118/1.2977535 pmid:18975703

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   2. Söderberg M,
   3. Gunnarsson M

   . Automatic exposure control in computed tomography–an evaluation of systems from different manufacturers. Acta Radiol 2010;51:625–34 doi:10.3109/02841851003698206 pmid:20429764

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    2. Lurz M,
    3. Lell MM,
    4. Wuest W, et al

    . Automated tube voltage selection in thoracoabdominal computed tomography at high pitch using a third-generation dual-source scanner: image quality and radiation dose performance. Invest Radiol 2015;50:352–60 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000133 pmid:25591129

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. May MS,
    3. Kramer MR,
    4. Eller A, et al

    . Automated tube voltage adaptation in head and neck computed tomography between 120 and 100 kV: effects on image quality and radiation dose. Neuroradiology 2014;56:797–803 doi:10.1007/s00234-014-1393-4 pmid:24961883

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Gaddikeri S,
    3. Andre JB,
    4. Benjert J, et al

    . Impact of model-based iterative reconstruction on image quality of contrast-enhanced neck CT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:391–96 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4123 pmid:25300982

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    2. Bodelle B,
    3. Klein E,
    4. Naguib NN, et al

    . Acute intracranial hemorrhage in CT: benefits of sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction techniques. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:445–49 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3801 pmid:24263695

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    2. Gordic S,
    3. Desbiolles L,
    4. Stolzmann P, et al

    . Advanced modelled iterative reconstruction for abdominal CT: qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Clin Radiol 2014;69:e497–504 doi:10.1016/j.crad.2014.08.012 pmid:25239788

    CrossRefPubMed
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 protocols 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. Curtis JR

    . Computed tomography shielding methods: a literature review. Radiol Technol 2010;81:428–36 pmid:20445137

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    2. Ramirez-Giraldo J,
    3. Primak A,
    4. Grant K, et al

    . Radiation dose optimization technologies in multidetector computed tomography: a review. Med Phys 2014;2:420–30
18. 18.↵
    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
19. 19.↵
    2. Gordic S,
    3. Morsbach F,
    4. Schmidt B, et al

    . Ultralow-dose chest computed tomography for pulmonary nodule detection: first performance evaluation of single energy scanning with spectral shaping. Invest Radiol 2014;49:465–73 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000037 pmid:24598443

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    Computed Tomography Subcommittee Task Group #204. Size specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations. American Association of Physicists in Medicine Reports. 2011. http://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/default.asp. Accessed June 7, 2015.
21. 21.↵
    2. Berrington de González A,
    3. Mahesh M,
    4. Kim KP, et al

    . Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:2071–77 doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.440 pmid:20008689

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    2. Brenner DJ,
    3. Hall EJ

    . Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2277–84 doi:10.1056/NEJMra072149 pmid:18046031

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    2. Gnannt R,
    3. Winklehner A,
    4. Goetti R, et al

    . Low kilovoltage CT of the neck with 70 kVp: comparison with a standard protocol. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1014–19 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2910 pmid:22300930

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    2. Scholtz JE,
    3. Hüsers K,
    4. Kaup M, et al

    . Evaluation of image quality and dose reduction of 80 kVp neck computed tomography in patients with suspected peritonsillar abscess. Clin Radiol 2015;70:e67–73 doi:10.1016/j.crad.2015.04.009 pmid:26050533

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Beister M,
    3. Kolditz D,
    4. Kalender WA

    . Iterative reconstruction methods in x-ray CT. Phys Med 2012;28:94–108 doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2012.01.003 pmid:22316498

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. May MS,
    3. Wüst W,
    4. Brand M, et al

    . Dose reduction in abdominal computed tomography: intraindividual comparison of image quality of full-dose standard and half-dose iterative reconstructions with dual-source computed tomography. Invest Radiol 2011;46:465–70 doi:10.1097/RLI.0b013e31821690a1 pmid:21467948

    CrossRefPubMed