PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Im, Jessica Y.
AU  - Halliburton, Sandra S.
AU  - Mei, Kai
AU  - Perkins, Amy E.
AU  - Wong, Eddy
AU  - Roshkovan, Leonid
AU  - Sandvold, Olivia F.
AU  - Liu, Leening P.
AU  - Gang, Grace J.
AU  - Noël, Peter B.
TI  - Patient-derived PixelPrint phantoms for evaluating clinical imaging performance of a deep learning CT reconstruction algorithm
AID  - 10.1101/2023.12.07.23299625
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.12.07.23299625
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/09/2023.12.07.23299625.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/09/2023.12.07.23299625.full
AB  - Objective Deep learning reconstruction (DLR) algorithms exhibit object-dependent resolution and noise performance. Thus, traditional geometric CT phantoms cannot fully capture the clinical imaging performance of DLR. This study uses a patient-derived 3D-printed PixelPrint lung phantom to evaluate a commercial DLR algorithm across a wide range of radiation dose levels.Approach The lung phantom used in this study is based on a patient chest CT scan containing ground glass opacities and was fabricated using PixelPrint 3D-printing technology. The phantom was placed inside two different sized extension rings to mimic a small and medium sized patient and was scanned on a conventional CT scanner at exposures between 0.5 and 20 mGy. Each scan was reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP), iterative reconstruction, and DLR at five levels of denoising. Image noise, contrast to noise ratio (CNR), root mean squared error (RMSE), structural similarity index (SSIM), and multi-scale SSIM (MS SSIM) were calculated for each image.Main Results DLR demonstrated superior performance compared to FBP and iterative reconstruction for all measured metrics in both phantom sizes, with better performance for more aggressive denoising levels. DLR was estimated to reduce dose by 25-83% in the small phantom and by 50-83% in the medium phantom without decreasing image quality for any of the metrics measured in this study. These dose reduction estimates are more conservative compared to the estimates obtained when only considering noise and CNR with a non-anatomical physics phantom.Significance DLR has the capability of producing diagnostic image quality at up to 83% lower radiation dose which can improve the clinical utility and viability of lower dose CT scans. Furthermore, the PixelPrint phantom used in this study offers an improved testing environment with more realistic tissue structures compared to traditional CT phantoms, allowing for structure-based image quality evaluation beyond noise and contrast-based assessments.Competing Interest StatementPN has received a hardware grant from Philips Healthcare. PN receives research grant funding from Philips Healthcare. SH, AP, and EW are employees of Philips Healthcare. The other authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.Funding StatementWe acknowledge support through the National Institutes of Health (R01EB030494, R01EB031592, R01HL166236, & R01CA249538).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Pennsylvania approved this retrospective study.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.