A comprehensive assessment of physical image quality of five different scanners for head CT imaging as clinically used at a single hospital centre-A phantom study.


Journal

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2021
Historique:
received: 24 02 2020
accepted: 28 12 2020
entrez: 14 1 2021
pubmed: 15 1 2021
medline: 11 6 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Nowadays, given the technological advance in CT imaging and increasing heterogeneity in characteristics of CT scanners, a number of CT scanners with different manufacturers/technologies are often installed in a hospital centre and used by various departments. In this phantom study, a comprehensive assessment of image quality of 5 scanners (from 3 manufacturers and with different models) for head CT imaging, as clinically used at a single hospital centre, was hence carried out. Helical and/or sequential acquisitions of the Catphan-504 phantom were performed, using the scanning protocols (CTDIvol range: 54.7-57.5 mGy) employed by the staff of various Radiology/Neuroradiology departments of our institution for routine head examinations. CT image quality for each scanner/acquisition protocol was assessed through noise level, noise power spectrum (NPS), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), modulation transfer function (MTF), low contrast detectability (LCD) and non-uniformity index analyses. Noise values ranged from 3.5 HU to 5.7 HU across scanners/acquisition protocols. NPS curves differed in terms of peak position (range: 0.21-0.30 mm-1). A substantial variation of CNR values with scanner/acquisition protocol was observed for different contrast inserts. The coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by mean value) of CNR values across scanners/acquisition protocols was 18.3%, 31.4%, 34.2%, 30.4% and 30% for teflon, delrin, LDPE, polystyrene and acrylic insert, respectively. An appreciable difference in MTF curves across scanners/acquisition protocols was revealed, with a coefficient of variation of f50%/f10% of MTF curves across scanners/acquisition protocols of 10.1%/7.4%. A relevant difference in LCD performance of different scanners/acquisition protocols was found. The range of contrast threshold for a typical object size of 3 mm was 3.7-5.8 HU. Moreover, appreciable differences in terms of NUI values (range: 4.1%-8.3%) were found. The analysis of several quality indices showed a non-negligible variability in head CT imaging capabilities across different scanners/acquisition protocols. This highlights the importance of a physical in-depth characterization of image quality for each CT scanner as clinically used, in order to optimize CT imaging procedures.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33444367
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245374
pii: PONE-D-20-05339
pmc: PMC7808662
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e0245374

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Références

Med Phys. 2015 Jan;42(1):314-23
pubmed: 25563271
Phys Med. 2018 Apr;48:111-118
pubmed: 29728223
Radiology. 2015 Jun;275(3):725-34
pubmed: 25686365
Eur Radiol. 2018 Dec;28(12):5203-5210
pubmed: 29858638
N Engl J Med. 2000 Jul 13;343(2):100-5
pubmed: 10891517
Phys Med. 2016 Dec;32(12):1717-1723
pubmed: 27964873
Med Phys. 2002 Nov;29(11):2655-71
pubmed: 12462733
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2018 Jan 1;178(1):20-28
pubmed: 28591824
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2014 Nov;118(5):603-11
pubmed: 25442498
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2015 May;96(5):477-86
pubmed: 25797211
Med Phys. 2014 Jul;41(7):071911
pubmed: 24989389
Phys Med. 2016 Apr;32(4):582-9
pubmed: 27056436
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2018 Jan;5(1):013506
pubmed: 29430476
Med Phys. 2013 May;40(5):051907
pubmed: 23635277
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013 Nov 04;14(6):4417
pubmed: 24257284
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2014 Dec;162(4):586-96
pubmed: 24567497
Med Phys. 2014 Apr;41(4):041906
pubmed: 24694137
Invest Radiol. 2013 Apr;48(4):192-9
pubmed: 23344518
J Am Coll Radiol. 2014 Mar;11(3):267-70
pubmed: 24589402
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2015 Jul-Aug;39(4):619-23
pubmed: 25853774
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018 Mar;19(2):275-286
pubmed: 29363260
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2018 Jun;41(2):463-473
pubmed: 29737491
Med Phys. 2017 Nov;44(11):5705-5717
pubmed: 28865170
Phys Med. 2015 Dec;31(8):823-843
pubmed: 26459319
Med Phys. 2011 Jul;38 Suppl 1:S25
pubmed: 21978115
Radiographics. 2018 Sep-Oct;38(5):1421-1440
pubmed: 30207943
N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 29;357(22):2277-84
pubmed: 18046031
Radiol Phys Technol. 2015 Jan;8(1):53-9
pubmed: 25142743
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Mar 15;52(4):1123-31
pubmed: 11958910
Sci Rep. 2018 Dec 7;8(1):17734
pubmed: 30531988
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2015 Mar;163(4):521-30
pubmed: 25107439
Rofo. 2018 Jun;190(6):531-541
pubmed: 29534253
Med Phys. 2012 Oct;39(10):6048-55
pubmed: 23039643
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018 Jul;19(4):246-251
pubmed: 29729075
Med Devices (Auckl). 2015 Jun 05;8:265-78
pubmed: 26089707
Br J Radiol. 1998 Jul;71(847):734-44
pubmed: 9771384
Eur Radiol Exp. 2017;1(1):18
pubmed: 29708194
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2017 May 1;174(4):510-517
pubmed: 27522051
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Jan 16;63(2):025027
pubmed: 29185436
Eur Radiol. 2011 Mar;21(3):636-43
pubmed: 21080171
Radiology. 2001 Apr;219(1):95-100
pubmed: 11274542
Eur Respir J. 2016 Jun;47(6):1706-17
pubmed: 27076593
Eur J Radiol. 2019 Feb;111:68-75
pubmed: 30691668
J Am Coll Radiol. 2014 Mar;11(3):271-278
pubmed: 24589403
Med Phys. 2010 Jun;37(6):2473-9
pubmed: 20632558
Med Phys. 2010 Feb;37(2):897-906
pubmed: 20229899
Phys Med. 2008 Jun;24(2):71-9
pubmed: 18331808
Med Phys. 2017 Mar;44(3):974-985
pubmed: 28060414
J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 1999 Mar;16(3):633-46
pubmed: 10069050
Med Phys. 2009 Mar;36(3):1019-24
pubmed: 19378762
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015 Mar 08;16(2):4972
pubmed: 26103172
Phys Med. 2014 May;30(3):271-9
pubmed: 23948366
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016 Jul 08;17(4):377-390
pubmed: 27455472
Adv Biol Med Phys. 1957;5:211-42
pubmed: 13520432
J Xray Sci Technol. 2015;23(3):373-81
pubmed: 26410470
Med Phys. 2017 Feb;44(2):460-469
pubmed: 28019671
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010 Apr-May;139(1-3):430-3
pubmed: 20181647
Radiology. 2004 Oct;233(1):79-86
pubmed: 15340177
Eur J Radiol. 2019 Feb;111:93-103
pubmed: 30691672
Phys Med Biol. 2009 Apr 7;54(7):1871-92
pubmed: 19265204
Invest Radiol. 2019 May;54(5):265-272
pubmed: 30562273
Phys Med. 2017 Sep;41:97-103
pubmed: 28506649
Med Phys. 2017 Apr;44(4):1301-1311
pubmed: 28122119
Radiographics. 2006 Oct;26 Suppl 1:S45-62
pubmed: 17050518
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017 Nov;18(6):224-231
pubmed: 28921910
Med Phys. 2005 Aug;32(8):2536-47
pubmed: 16193784
Med Phys. 2018 Apr;45(4):1444-1458
pubmed: 29446082
Med Phys. 2017 Sep;44(9):e153-e163
pubmed: 28901621
Med Phys. 2019 Nov;46(11):e735-e756
pubmed: 31408540
Radiology. 2013 Mar;266(3):783-90
pubmed: 23204540
Med Phys. 2014 Dec;41(12):121913
pubmed: 25471973

Auteurs

Patrizio Barca (P)

Unit of Medical Physics, Pisa University Hospital "Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana", Pisa, Italy.

Fabio Paolicchi (F)

Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.

Giacomo Aringhieri (G)

Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.

Federica Palmas (F)

Department of Physics, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.

Daniela Marfisi (D)

Unit of Medical Physics, Pisa University Hospital "Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana", Pisa, Italy.

Maria Evelina Fantacci (ME)

Department of Physics, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
INFN, Pisa section, Pisa, Italy.

Davide Caramella (D)

Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.

Marco Giannelli (M)

Unit of Medical Physics, Pisa University Hospital "Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana", Pisa, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH