Task-driven optimization of CT tube current modulation and regularization in model-based iterative reconstruction

被引:13
|
作者
Gang, Grace J. [1 ]
Siewerdsen, Jeffrey H. [1 ]
Stayman, J. Webster [1 ]
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Med Inst, Dept Biomed Engn, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
来源
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY | 2017年 / 62卷 / 12期
关键词
tube current modulation; regularization design; model-based iterative reconstruction; detectability index; computed topography; task-based optimization; imaging task; CONE-BEAM CT; LIKELIHOOD IMAGE-RECONSTRUCTION; SPATIAL-RESOLUTION PROPERTIES; LESION DETECTION; DETECTABILITY; NOISE; SPECT; TOMOSYNTHESIS; ACQUISITION; PERFORMANCE;
D O I
10.1088/1361-6560/aa6a97
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
Tube current modulation (TCM) is routinely adopted on diagnostic CT scanners for dose reduction. Conventional TCM strategies are generally designed for filtered-backprojection (FBP) reconstruction to satisfy simple image quality requirements based on noise. This work investigates TCM designs for model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) to achieve optimal imaging performance as determined by a task-based image quality metric. Additionally, regularization is an important aspect of MBIR that is jointly optimized with TCM, and includes both the regularization strength that controls overall smoothness as well as directional weights that permits control of the isotropy/anisotropy of the local noise and resolution properties. Initial investigations focus on a known imaging task at a single location in the image volume. The framework adopts Fourier and analytical approximations for fast estimation of the local noise power spectrum (NPS) and modulation transfer function (MTF)-each carrying dependencies on TCM and regularization. For the single location optimization, the local detectability index (d ') of the specific task was directly adopted as the objective function. A covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy (CMA-ES) algorithm was employed to identify the optimal combination of imaging parameters. Evaluations of both conventional and task-driven approaches were performed in an abdomen phantom for a mid-frequency discrimination task in the kidney. Among the conventional strategies, the TCM pattern optimal for FBP using a minimum variance criterion yielded a worse task-based performance compared to an unmodulated strategy when applied to MBIR. Moreover, task-driven TCM designs for MBIR were found to have the opposite behavior from conventional designs for FBP, with greater fluence assigned to the less attenuating views of the abdomen and less fluence to the more attenuating lateral views. Such TCM patterns exaggerate the intrinsic anisotropy of the MTF and NPS as a result of the data weighting in MBIR. Directional penalty design was found to reinforce the same trend. The task-driven approaches outperform conventional approaches, with the maximum improvement in d ' of 13% given by the joint optimization of TCM and regularization. This work demonstrates that the TCM optimal for MBIR is distinct from conventional strategies proposed for FBP reconstruction and strategies optimal for FBP are suboptimal and may even reduce performance when applied to MBIR. The task-driven imaging framework offers a promising approach for optimizing acquisition and reconstruction for MBIR that can improve imaging performance and/or dose utilization beyond conventional imaging strategies.
引用
收藏
页码:4777 / 4797
页数:21
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Task-Driven Fluence Field Modulation Design for Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction in CT
    Gang, G.
    Siewerdsen, J.
    Stayman, J.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2016, 43 (06) : 3890 - 3891
  • [2] Task-Driven Optimization of Fluence Field and Regularization for Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction in Computed Tomography
    Gang, Grace J.
    Siewerdsen, Jeffrey H.
    Stayman, J. Webster
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, 2017, 36 (12) : 2424 - 2435
  • [3] Task-Driven Tube Current Modulation and Regularization Design in Computed Tomography with Penalized-Likelihood Reconstruction
    Gang, G. J.
    Siewerdsen, J. H.
    Stayman, J. W.
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2016: PHYSICS OF MEDICAL IMAGING, 2016, 9783
  • [4] Joint Optimization of Fluence Field Modulation and Regularization in Task-Driven Computed Tomography
    Gang, G. J.
    Siewerdsen, J. H.
    Stayman, J. W.
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2017: PHYSICS OF MEDICAL IMAGING, 2017, 10132
  • [5] Optimization of the field-of-view in a model-based iterative reconstruction for CT
    Pal, Debashish
    Thibault, Jean-Baptiste
    Hsieh, Jiang
    2010 IEEE NUCLEAR SCIENCE SYMPOSIUM CONFERENCE RECORD (NSS/MIC), 2010, : 3422 - 3424
  • [6] Diameter Measurement of Vascular Model on CT Angiography Using Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction: Effect of Tube Current on Accuracy
    Suzuki, Shigeru
    Machida, Haruhiko
    Tanaka, Isao
    Fukui, Rika
    Ueno, Eiko
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2014, 202 (02) : 437 - 442
  • [7] Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction in CT Enterography
    Murphy, Kevin P.
    Crush, Lee
    Twomey, Maria
    McLaughlin, Patrick D.
    Mildenberger, Iris C.
    Moore, Niamh
    Bye, Jackie
    O'Connor, Owen J.
    McSweeney, Sean E.
    Shanahan, Fergus
    Maher, Michael M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2015, 205 (06) : 1173 - 1181
  • [8] CT QA Revisited in Context of Tube Current Modulation and Iterative Reconstruction
    Winslow, J.
    Wilson, J.
    Christianson, O.
    Samei, E.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2012, 39 (06) : 3606 - 3606
  • [9] Model-based Iterative CT Image Reconstruction on GPUs
    Sabne, Amit
    Wang, Xiao
    Kisner, Sherman
    Bouman, Charles
    Raghunathan, Anand
    Midkiff, Samuel
    ACM SIGPLAN NOTICES, 2017, 52 (08) : 207 - 220
  • [10] Usefulness of Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction in Brain CT as Compared With Hybrid Iterative Reconstruction
    Sekino, Hirofumi
    Ishii, Shiro
    Kuroiwa, Daichi
    Fujimaki, Hideki
    Sugawara, Shigeyasu
    Suenaga, Hiroki
    Hakozaki, Motoharu
    Yamakuni, Ryo
    Watanabe, Hirotake
    Hasegawa, Osamu
    Ito, Hiroshi
    JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2021, 45 (04) : 600 - 605