# Spatial Distribution of Noise Reduction in Four Iterative Reconstruction Algorithms in CT—A Technical Evaluation

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Materials and Methods

## 3. Results

#### 3.1. Noise Maps

#### 3.2. Noise Profiles across Edges

## 4. Discussion

#### 4.1. Noise Reduction Properties of the IR Algorithms

#### 4.2. Scan and Reconstruction Parameters

#### 4.3. Method for Measuring Noise Reduction

## 5. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Conflicts of Interest

## Abbreviations

AAPM | American Association of Physicists in Medicine |

ADMIRE | Advanced modeled iterative reconstruction |

AIDR 3D | Adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D |

ASIR-V | Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction V |

CT | Computed tomography |

CTDI${}_{\mathrm{vol}}$ | Volume computed tomography dose index |

FBP | Filtered back projection |

HU | Hounsfield unit |

IR | Iterative reconstruction |

NM | Noise map |

NRM | Noise reduction map |

NPS | Noise power spectrum |

org | original |

pp | percentage points |

ROI | Region of interest |

SD | Standard deviation |

std | standard |

str | strong |

## Appendix A. Noise Reduction Maps

**Figure A1.**Noise reduction maps created by calculating the pixelwise relative noise reduction between the noise maps of each IR level compared to FBP for all vendors. A lighter color indicates a larger amount of noise reduced in the given pixel compared to FBP. The darkest blue and black colors, representing values smaller than 0%, indicates a noise increase compared to FBP.

## References

- Mathews, J.D.; Forsythe, A.V.; Brady, Z.; Butler, M.W.; Goergen, S.K.; Byrnes, G.B.; Giles, G.G.; Wallace, A.B.; Anderson, P.R.; Guiver, T.A.; et al. Cancer risk in 680 000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: Data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ
**2013**, 346, f2360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Brenner, D. What we know and what we don’t know about cancer risks associated with radiation doses from radiological imaging. Br. J. Radiol.
**2014**, 87, 20130629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Ginat, D.T.; Gupta, R. Advances in Computed Tomography Imaging Technology. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng.
**2014**, 16, 431–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Beister, M.; Kolditz, D.; Kalender, W.A. Iterative reconstruction methods in X-ray CT. Phys. Med.
**2012**, 28, 94–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Feldkamp, L.A.; Davis, L.C.; Kress, J.W. Practical cone-beam algorithm. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A
**1984**, 1, 612–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Willemink, M.J.; de Jong, P.A.; Leiner, T.; de Heer, L.M.; Nievelstein, R.A.; Budde, R.P.; Schilham, A.M. Iterative reconstruction techniques for computed tomography Part 1: Technical principles. Eur. Radiol.
**2013**, 23, 1623–1631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Solomon, J.; Samei, E. Quantum noise properties of CT images with anatomical textured backgrounds across reconstruction algorithms: FBP and SAFIRE. Med. Phys.
**2014**, 41, 091908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Funama, Y.; Taguchi, K.; Utsunomiya, D.; Oda, S.; Katahira, K.; Tokuyasu, S.; Yamashita, Y. Image quality assessment of an iterative reconstruction algorithm applied to abdominal CT imaging. Phys. Med.
**2014**, 30, 527–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Dalehaug, I.; Bolstad, K.; Aadnevik, D.; Flataboe, S.; Pettersen, H.E.S. ADMIRE vs. SAFIRE: Objective comparison of CT reconstruction algorithms and their noise properties. arXiv
**2017**, arXiv:1708.09616. [Google Scholar] - Löve, A.; Olsson, M.L.; Siemund, R.; Stålhammar, F.; Björkman-Burtscher, I.M.; Söderberg, M. Six iterative reconstruction algorithms in brain CT: A phantom study on image quality at different radiation dose levels. Br. J. Radiol.
**2013**, 86, 20130388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Andersen, H.K.; Völgyes, D.; Martinsen, A.C.T. Image quality with iterative reconstruction techniques in CT of the lungs—A phantom study. Eur. J. Radiol.
**2018**, 5, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Routine Adult Chest-Abdomen-Pelvis CT Protocol. Available online: https://www.aapm.org/pubs/CTProtocols/documents/AdultRoutineChestAbdomenPelvisCT.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2020).
- Guleng, M.A.D. Radiation Dose and Image Quality in CT—Evaluation of How Slice Thickness, Tube Current Modulation and Reconstruction Algorithms Affect Radiation Dose and Image Noise. Master’s Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Schneider, C.A.; Rasband, W.S.; Eliceiri, K.W. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat. Methods
**2012**, 9, 671–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Zhang, H.; Wang, J.; Zeng, D.; Tao, X.; Ma, J. Regularization strategies in statistical image reconstruction of low-dose x-ray CT: A review. Med. Phys.
**2018**, 45, e886–e907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Merzan, D.; Nowik, P.; Poludniowski, G.; Bujila, R. Evaluating the impact of scan settings on automatic tube current modulation in CT using a novel phantom. Br. J. Radiol.
**2017**, 90, 20160308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Gervaise, A.; Osemont, B.; Lecocq, S.; Noel, A.; Micard, E.; Felblinger, J.; Blum, A. CT image quality improvement using adaptive iterative dose reduction with wide-volume acquisition on 320-detector CT. Eur. Radiol.
**2012**, 22, 295–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Silva, A.C.; Lawder, H.J.; Hara, A.; Kujak, J.; Pavlicek, W. Innovations in CT dose reduction strategy: Application of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm. Am. J. Roentgenol.
**2010**, 194, 191–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Noël, P.B.; Fingerle, A.A.; Renger, B.; Münzel, D.; Rummeny, E.J.; Dobritz, M. Initial performance characterization of a clinical noise–suppressing reconstruction algorithm for mdct. Am. J. Roentgenol.
**2011**, 197, 1404–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Solomon, J.B.; Christianson, O.; Samei, E. Quantitative comparison of noise texture across CT scanners from different manufacturers. Med. Phys.
**2012**, 39, 6048–6055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

**Figure 1.**(

**a**) Anthropomorphic abdomen phantom; (

**b**) computed tomography (CT) image of the phantom illustrating the positions of the three edges used to measure noise profiles in the noise maps. The difference in tissue density over the three edges were 1000 HU, 70 HU and 30 HU.

**Figure 2.**Noise maps showing the inter-image pixel standard deviation for 30 images, each reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP), a medium level of iterative reconstruction (IR) and a high level of IR for all vendors. A lighter color indicates a higher standard deviation, an thus a higher level of noise, in the given pixel.

**Figure 3.**Edge profiles showing the standard deviation (SD) measured over the 1000 HU edge in the noise maps reconstructed with FBP, a medium level of IR and a high level of IR for each vendor. The dashed line shows the average CT number in the FBP images.

**Figure 4.**Edge profiles showing the standard deviation (SD) measured over the 70 HU edge in the noise maps reconstructed with FBP, a medium level of IR and a high level of IR for each vendor. The dashed line shows the average CT number in the FBP images.

**Figure 5.**Edge profiles showing the standard deviation (SD) measured over the 30 HU edge in the noise maps reconstructed with FBP, a medium level of IR and a high level of IR for each vendor. The dashed line shows the average CT number in the FBP images.

Parameter | Canon | GE | Philips | Siemens |
---|---|---|---|---|

Scanner type | Aquilion Prime | Revolution Evo | Ingenuity | Somatom Definition Flash |

CTDI${}_{\mathrm{vol}}$ [mGy] | 15 | 15 | 12 | 15 |

Tube potential [kV] | 120 | 120 | 120 | 120 |

Tube current product [mAs] | 160 | 250 | 150 | 222 |

Reconstruction kernel | FC18 | Standard | B | B30f / I30f * |

IR algorithm | AIDR 3D | ASIR-V | iDose | ADMIRE |

IR levels used | org/std/str | 0%/50%/100% | 0/3/6 | 0/3/5 |

**Table 2.**Average amount and standard deviation of noise reduced outside and at three anatomical edges for two levels of IR relative to FBP, measured in the calculated noise maps (see Appendix A). The difference in noise reduced outside and at each anatomical edge is listed in percentage points (pp).

Edge | IR Level | Position | Noise Reduction Relative to FBP | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Canon | GE | Philips | Siemens | |||

1000 HU | Medium | Outside edge | 36% ± 3% | 31% ± 8% | 22% ± 1% | 29% ± 2% |

At edge | 8% ± 2% | 6% ± 0.2% | 0% ± 1% | 8% ± 3% | ||

Difference | (28 ± 3) pp | (25 ± 8) pp | (22 ± 1) pp | (21 ± 4) pp | ||

High | Outside edge | 41% ± 4% | 51% ± 15% | 43% ± 2% | 52% ± 2% | |

At edge | 10% ± 1% | 6% ± 0.4% | 0% ± 2% | 15% ± 6% | ||

Difference | (31 ± 4) pp | (45 ± 15) pp | (44 ± 3) pp | (37 ± 6) pp | ||

70 HU | Medium | Outside edge | 38% ± 2% | 39% ± 1% | 23% ± 0.4% | 30% ± 1% |

At edge | 34% ± 1% | 29% ± 2% | 7% ± 3% | 20% ± 5% | ||

Difference | (4 ± 2) pp | (10 ± 2) pp | (16 ± 3) pp | (10 ± 5) pp | ||

High | Outside edge | 44% ± 2% | 65% ± 1% | 46% ± 1% | 53% ± 1% | |

At edge | 40% ± 1% | 44% ± 4% | 12% ± 6% | 34% ± 9% | ||

Difference | (4 ± 2) pp | (21 ± 4) pp | (33 ± 6) pp | (18 ± 9) pp | ||

30 HU | Medium | Outside edge | 42% ± 2% | 40% ± 1% | 23% ± 1% | 30% ± 1% |

At edge | 40% ± 1% | 33% ± 2% | 16% ± 2% | 18% ± 3% | ||

Difference | (2 ± 2) pp | (7 ± 2) pp | (7 ± 2) pp | (11 ± 3) pp | ||

High | Outside edge | 49% ± 2% | 67% ± 1% | 46% ± 1% | 52% ± 1% | |

At edge | 46% ± 1% | 52% ± 4% | 32% ± 3% | 33% ± 5% | ||

Difference | (3 ± 2) pp | (15 ± 4) pp | (14 ± 3) pp | (19 ± 5) pp |

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Guleng, A.; Bolstad, K.; Dalehaug, I.; Flatabø, S.; Aadnevik, D.; Pettersen, H.E.S.
Spatial Distribution of Noise Reduction in Four Iterative Reconstruction Algorithms in CT—A Technical Evaluation. *Diagnostics* **2020**, *10*, 647.
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10090647

**AMA Style**

Guleng A, Bolstad K, Dalehaug I, Flatabø S, Aadnevik D, Pettersen HES.
Spatial Distribution of Noise Reduction in Four Iterative Reconstruction Algorithms in CT—A Technical Evaluation. *Diagnostics*. 2020; 10(9):647.
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10090647

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Guleng, Anette, Kirsten Bolstad, Ingvild Dalehaug, Silje Flatabø, Daniel Aadnevik, and Helge E. S. Pettersen.
2020. "Spatial Distribution of Noise Reduction in Four Iterative Reconstruction Algorithms in CT—A Technical Evaluation" *Diagnostics* 10, no. 9: 647.
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10090647