A systematic task-based image quality assessment of photon-counting and energy integrating CT as a function of reconstruction kernel and phantom size.
computer tomography
contrast
contrast-to-noise ratio
detectability index
energy integrating CT
noise power spectrum
photon counting CT
task transfer function
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Jul 2023
19 Jul 2023
Historique:
revised:
25
04
2023
received:
13
12
2022
accepted:
28
06
2023
medline:
20
7
2023
pubmed:
20
7
2023
entrez:
20
7
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Image quality of photon-counting and energy integrating CT scanners changes with object size, dose to the object, and kernel selection. To comprehensively compare task-generic image quality of photon-counting CT (PCCT) and energy integrating CT (EICT) systems as a function of phantom size, dose, and reconstruction kernel. A size-variant phantom (Mercury Phantom 3.0) was used to characterize the image quality of PCCT and EICT systems as a function of object size. The phantom contained five cylinders attached by slanted tapered sections. Each cylinder contained two sections: one uniform for noise, and the other with inserts for spatial resolution and contrast measurements. The phantom was scanned on Siemens' SOMATOM Force and NAEOTOM Alpha at 1.18 and 7.51 mGy without tube current modulation. CTDI From Br40 (soft) to Br64 (sharp), f Both PCCT image types, T3D and 70-keV-VMI exhibited similar or better noise, contrast, CNR than EICT when comparing kernels with similar names. For 512 × 512 matrix, PCCT's sharp kernels had lower resolution than EICT's sharp kernels. For all image quality metrics, except extreme low, every dose condition had a similar set of IQ-matching kernels. It suggests that considering patient size and dose level to determine IQ-matching kernel pairs across PCCT and EICT systems may not be imperative while translating protocols, except when the signal to the detector is extremely low.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Image quality of photon-counting and energy integrating CT scanners changes with object size, dose to the object, and kernel selection.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To comprehensively compare task-generic image quality of photon-counting CT (PCCT) and energy integrating CT (EICT) systems as a function of phantom size, dose, and reconstruction kernel.
METHODS
METHODS
A size-variant phantom (Mercury Phantom 3.0) was used to characterize the image quality of PCCT and EICT systems as a function of object size. The phantom contained five cylinders attached by slanted tapered sections. Each cylinder contained two sections: one uniform for noise, and the other with inserts for spatial resolution and contrast measurements. The phantom was scanned on Siemens' SOMATOM Force and NAEOTOM Alpha at 1.18 and 7.51 mGy without tube current modulation. CTDI
RESULTS
RESULTS
From Br40 (soft) to Br64 (sharp), f
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Both PCCT image types, T3D and 70-keV-VMI exhibited similar or better noise, contrast, CNR than EICT when comparing kernels with similar names. For 512 × 512 matrix, PCCT's sharp kernels had lower resolution than EICT's sharp kernels. For all image quality metrics, except extreme low, every dose condition had a similar set of IQ-matching kernels. It suggests that considering patient size and dose level to determine IQ-matching kernel pairs across PCCT and EICT systems may not be imperative while translating protocols, except when the signal to the detector is extremely low.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : R01EB001838
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : R01HL155293
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : P41EB028744
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2023 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
FDA Clears First Major Imaging Device Advancement for Computed Tomography in Nearly a Decade. U.S. Food and Drug Administration; September 30, 2021, https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-clears-first-major-imaging-device-advancement-computed-tomography-nearly-decade
Willemink MJ, Persson M, Pourmorteza A, Pelc NJ, Fleischmann D. Photon-counting CT: technical principles and clinical prospects. Radiology. 2018;289(2):293-312. doi:10.1148/radiol.2018172656
Danielsson M, Persson M, Sjolin M. Photon-counting x-ray detectors for CT. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66(3):03TR01. doi:10.1088/1361-6560/abc5a5
Zhou W, Lane JI, Carlson ML, et al. Comparison of a photon-counting-detector CT with an energy-integrating-detector CT for temporal bone imaging: a cadaveric study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018;39(9):1733-1738. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5768
Taguchi K, Iwanczyk JS. Vision 20/20: single photon counting x-ray detectors in medical imaging. Med Phys. 2013;40(10):100901. doi:10.1118/1.4820371
Rajagopal JR, Farhadi F, Solomon J, et al. Comparison of low dose performance of photon-counting and energy integrating CT. Acad Radiol. 2021;28(12):1754-1760. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2020.07.033
Yu Z, Leng S, Kappler S, et al. Noise performance of low-dose CT: comparison between an energy integrating detector and a photon counting detector using a whole-body research photon counting CT scanner. J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2016;3(4):043503. doi:10.1117/1.JMI.3.4.043503
Symons R, Pourmorteza A, Sandfort V, et al. Feasibility of dose-reduced chest CT with Photon-counting detectors: initial results in humans. Radiology. 2017;285(3):980-989. doi:10.1148/radiol.2017162587
Symons R, Cork TE, Sahbaee P, et al. Low-dose lung cancer screening with photon-counting CT: a feasibility study. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62(1):202-213. doi:10.1088/1361-6560/62/1/202
Wilson JM, Christianson OI, Richard S, Samei E. A methodology for image quality evaluation of advanced CT systems. Med Phys. 2013;40(3):031908. doi:10.1118/1.4791645
Samei E, Bakalyar D, Boedeker KL, et al. Performance evaluation of computed tomography systems: summary of AAPM task group 233. Med Phys. 2019;46(11):e735-e756. doi:10.1002/mp.13763
Solomon J, Wilson J, Samei E. Characteristic image quality of a third generation dual-source MDCT scanner: noise, resolution, and detectability. Med Phys. 2015;42(8):4941-53. doi:10.1118/1.4923172
Sartoretti T, Landsmann A, Nakhostin D, et al. Quantum iterative reconstruction for abdominal photon-counting detector CT improves image quality. Radiology. 2022:211931. doi:10.1148/radiol.211931
Solomon J, Zhang Y, Wilson J, Samei E. An automated software tool for task-based image quality assessment and matching in Clinical CT using the TG-233 framework. Med Phys. 2018;45(6):E134-E134.
Richard S, Husarik DB, Yadava G, Murphy SN, Samei E. Towards task-based assessment of CT performance: system and object MTF across different reconstruction algorithms. Med Phys. 2012;39(7):4115-22. doi:10.1118/1.4725171
Chen B, Christianson O, Wilson JM, Samei E. Assessment of volumetric noise and resolution performance for linear and nonlinear CT reconstruction methods. Med Phys. 2014;41(7):071909. doi:10.1118/1.4881519
Solomon JB, Christianson O, Samei E. Quantitative comparison of noise texture across CT scanners from different manufacturers. Med Phys. 2012;39(10):6048-55. doi:10.1118/1.4752209
Christianson O, Chen JJ, Yang Z, et al. An improved index of image quality for task-based performance of CT iterative reconstruction across three commercial implementations. Radiology. 2015;275(3):725-34. doi:10.1148/radiol.15132091
Rajagopal JR, Sahbaee P, Farhadi F, et al. A clinically driven task-based comparison of photon counting and conventional energy integrating CT for soft tissue, vascular, and high-resolution tasks. IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci. 2021;5(4):588-595. doi:10.1109/trpms.2020.3019954