Ultra-low-dose chest computed tomography for interstitial lung disease using model-based iterative reconstruction with or without the lung setting.

The aim of this study was to assess the effects of reconstruction on the image quality and quantitative analysis for interstitial lung disease (ILD) using filtered back projection (FBP) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) with the lung setting and the conventional setting on ultra-low-dose computed tomography (CT).Fifty-two patients with known ILD were prospectively enrolled and underwent CT at an ultra-low dose (0.18 ± 0.02 mSv) and a standard dose (7.01 ± 2.66 mSv). Ultra-low-dose CT was reconstructed using FBP (uFBP) and MBIR with the lung setting (uMBIR-Lung) and the conventional setting (uMBIR-Stnd). Standard-dose CT was reconstructed using FBP (sFBP). Three radiologists subjectively evaluated the images on a 3-point scale (1 = worst, 3 = best). For objective image quality analysis, regions of interest were placed in the lung parenchyma and the axillary fat, and standard deviation (SD), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were evaluated. For 32 patients with clinically diagnosed idiopathic interstitial pneumonia, quantitative measurements including total lung volume (TLV) and the percentage of ILD volume (%ILDV) were obtained. The medians of 3 radiologists' scores were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the objective noise was analyzed using the paired t test. The Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons. The quantitative measurements were analyzed using the Bland-Altman method.uMBIR-Lung scored better than uMBIR-Stnd and worse than sFBP (P < .001), except for noise and streak artifact in subjective analysis. The SD decreased significantly in the order of uMBIR-Stnd, uMBIR-Lung, sFBP, and uFBP (P < .001). The SNR and CNR increased significantly in the order of uMBIR-Stnd, uMBIR-Lung, sFBP, and uFBP (P < .001). For TLV, there was no significant bias between ultra-low-dose MBIRs and sFBP (P > .3). For %ILDV, there was no significant bias between uMBIR-Lung and sFBP (p = 0.8), but uMBIR-Stnd showed significantly lower %ILDV than sFBP (P = .013).uMBIR-Lung provided more appropriate image quality than uMBIR-Stnd. Although inferior to standard-dose CT for image quality, uMBIR-Lung showed equivalent CT quantitative measurements to standard-dose CT.