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
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
e0245374Déclaration 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