The Impact of Iterative Reconstruction in Low-Dose Computed Tomography on the Evaluation of Diffuse Interstitial Lung Disease

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the impact of iterative reconstruction (IR) on the assessment of diffuse interstitial lung disease (DILD) using CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS An American College of Radiology (ACR) phantom (module 4 to assess spatial resolution) was scanned with 10-100 effective mAs at 120 kVp. The images were reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR), with blending ratios of 0%, 30%, 70% and 100%, and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR), and their spatial resolution was objectively assessed by the line pair structure method. The patient study was based on retrospective interpretation of prospectively acquired data, and it was approved by the institutional review board. Chest CT scans of 23 patients (mean age 64 years) were performed at 120 kVp using 1) standard dose protocol applying 142-275 mA with dose modulation (high-resolution computed tomography [HRCT]) and 2) low-dose protocol applying 20 mA (low dose CT, LDCT). HRCT images were reconstructed with FBP, and LDCT images were reconstructed using FBP, ASIR, and MBIR. Matching images were randomized and independently reviewed by chest radiologists. Subjective assessment of disease presence and radiological diagnosis was made on a 10-point scale. In addition, semi-quantitative results were compared for the extent of abnormalities estimated to the nearest 5% of parenchymal involvement. RESULTS In the phantom study, ASIR was comparable to FBP in terms of spatial resolution. However, for MBIR, the spatial resolution was greatly decreased under 10 mA. In the patient study, the detection of the presence of disease was not significantly different. The values for area under the curve for detection of DILD by HRCT, FBP, ASIR, and MBIR were as follows: 0.978, 0.979, 0.972, and 0.963. LDCT images reconstructed with FBP, ASIR, and MBIR tended to underestimate reticular or honeycombing opacities (-2.8%, -4.1%, and -5.3%, respectively) and overestimate ground glass opacities (+4.6%, +8.9%, and +8.5%, respectively) compared to the HRCT images. However, the reconstruction methods did not differ with respect to radiologic diagnosis. CONCLUSION The diagnostic performance of LDCT with MBIR was similar to that of HRCT in typical DILD cases. However, caution should be exercised when comparing disease extent, especially in follow-up studies with IR.