Recently a new iterative reconstruction algorithm named Sinogram Affirmed Iterative Reconstruction (SAFIRE) has been released by Siemens. This algorithm works in the raw data domain with noise reduction as main purpose, providing five different strengths. In this study, the effect of SAFIRE on image quality has been investigated using selected phantoms and a comparison with standard filtered back projection (FBP) has been carried out. The following quantitative parameters have been evaluated: image noise, impact of different reconstruction kernels on noise reduction, noise power spectrum (NPS), contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR), spatial resolution, and linearity and accuracy of CT numbers. The influence of strengths on image quality parameters has also been examined. Results show that image noise reduction is independent of reconstruction kernel and strongly related to the strength of SAFIRE applied. The peak of NPS curve for SAFIRE reconstructions is shifted towards low frequencies; this effect is more marked at higher levels of strength. Contrast‐to‐noise ratio is always improved in SAFIRE reconstruction and increases with higher strength. At different dose levels SAFIRE preserves CT number accuracy, linearity, and spatial resolution, both in transversal and coronal planes. These results confirm that SAFIRE allows for image noise reduction with preserved image quality. First clinical data to validate this phantom analysis and confirm that commercially available iterative algorithms can play an effective role in dose containment.PACS number: 87.57.Q
Dose optimization in radiological examinations is a mandatory issue: in this study local Diagnostic Reference Levels (lDRLs) for Clinical Mammography (MG), Computed Tomography (CT) and Interventional Cardiac Procedures (ICP) performed in our Radiology Department were established. Using a dose tracking software, we have collected Average Glandular Dose (AGD) for two clinical mammographic units; CTDIvol, Size-Specific Dose Estimate (SSDE), Dose Length Product (DLP) and total DLP (DLPtot) for five CT scanners; Fluoro Time, Fluoro Dose Area Product (DAP) and total DAP (DAPtot) for two angiographic systems. Data have been compared with Italian Regulation and with the recent literature. The 75th percentiles of the different dosimetric indices have been calculated. Automated methods of radiation dose data collection allow a fast and detailed analysis of a great amount of data and an easy determination of lDRLs for different radiological procedures.
The evaluation of radiation burden in vivo is crucial in modern radiology as stated also in the European Directive 2013/59/Euratom—Basic Safety Standard. Although radiation dose monitoring can impact the justification and optimization of radiological procedure, as well as effective patient communication, standardization of radiation monitoring software is far to be achieved. Toward this goal, the Italian Association of Medical Physics (AIFM) published a report describing the state of the art and standard guidelines in radiation dose monitoring system quality assurance. This article reports the AIFM statement about radiation dose monitoring systems (RDMSs) summarizing the different critical points of the systems related to Medical Physicist Expert (MPE) activities before, during, and after their clinical implementation. In particular, the article describes the general aspects of radiation dose data management, radiation dose monitoring systems, data integrity, and data responsibilities. Furthermore, the acceptance tests that need to be implemented and the most relevant dosimetric data for each radiological modalities are reported under the MPE responsibility.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.