Objective performance assessment of five computed tomography iterative reconstruction algorithms.

Objective: Iterative algorithms are gaining clinical acceptance in CT. We performed objective phantom-based image quality evaluation of five commercial iterative reconstruction algorithms available on four different multi-detector CT (MDCT) scanners at different dose levels as well as the conventional filtered back-projection (FBP) reconstruction.

Methods: Using the Catphan500 phantom, we evaluated image noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), modulation transfer function (MTF) and noise-power spectrum (NPS). The algorithms were evaluated over a CTDIvol range of 0.75-18.7 mGy on four major MDCT scanners: GE DiscoveryCT750HD (algorithms: ASIR™ and VEO™); Siemens Somatom Definition AS+ (algorithm: SAFIRE™); Toshiba Aquilion64 (algorithm: AIDR3D™); and Philips Ingenuity iCT256 (algorithm: iDose4™). Images were reconstructed using FBP and the respective iterative algorithms on the four scanners.

Results: Use of iterative algorithms decreased image noise and increased CNR, relative to FBP. In the dose range of 1.3-1.5 mGy, noise reduction using iterative algorithms was in the range of 11%-51% on GE DiscoveryCT750HD, 10%-52% on Siemens Somatom Definition AS+, 49%-62% on Toshiba Aquilion64, and 13%-44% on Philips Ingenuity iCT256. The corresponding CNR increase was in the range 11%-105% on GE, 11%-106% on Siemens, 85%-145% on Toshiba and 13%-77% on Philips respectively. Most algorithms did not affect the MTF, except for VEO™ which produced an increase in the limiting resolution of up to 30%. A shift in the peak of the NPS curve towards lower frequencies and a decrease in NPS amplitude were obtained with all iterative algorithms. VEO™ required long reconstruction times, while all other algorithms produced reconstructions in real time. Compared to FBP, iterative algorithms reduced image noise and increased CNR.

Conclusions: The iterative algorithms available on different scanners achieved different levels of noise reduction and CNR increase while spatial resolution improvements were obtained only with VEO™. This study is useful in that it provides performance assessment of the iterative algorithms available from several mainstream CT manufacturers.