A systematic assessment and optimization of photon-counting CT for lung density quantifications.
computed tomography
photon-counting CT
quantitative imaging
virtual imaging trials
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Feb 2024
18 Feb 2024
Historique:
revised:
31
01
2024
received:
21
07
2023
accepted:
02
02
2024
medline:
18
2
2024
pubmed:
18
2
2024
entrez:
18
2
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Photon-counting computed tomography (PCCT) has recently emerged into clinical use; however, its optimum imaging protocols and added benefits remains unknown in terms of providing more accurate lung density quantification compared to energy-integrating computed tomography (EICT) scanners. To systematically assess the performance of a clinical PCCT scanner for lung density quantifications and compare it against EICT. This cross-sectional study involved a retrospective analysis of subjects scanned (August-December 2021) using a clinical PCCT system. The influence of altering reconstruction parameters was studied (reconstruction kernel, pixel size, slice thickness). A virtual CT dataset of anthropomorphic virtual subjects was acquired to demonstrate the correspondence of findings to clinical dataset, and to perform systematic imaging experiments, not possible using human subjects. The virtual subjects were imaged using a validated, scanner-specific CT simulator of a PCCT and two EICT (defined as EICT A and B) scanners. The images were evaluated using mean absolute error (MAE) of lung and emphysema density against their corresponding ground truth. Clinical and virtual PCCT datasets showed similar trends, with sharper kernels and smaller voxel sizes increasing percentage of low-attenuation areas below -950 HU (LAA-950) by up to 15.7 ± 6.9% and 11.8 ± 5.5%, respectively. Under the conditions studied, higher doses, thinner slices, smaller pixel sizes, iterative reconstructions, and quantitative kernels with medium sharpness resulted in lower lung MAE values. While using these settings for PCCT, changes in the dose level (13 to 1.3 mGy), slice thickness (0.4 to 1.5 mm), pixel size (0.49 to 0.98 mm), reconstruction technique (70 keV-VMI to wFBP), and kernel (Qr48 to Qr60) increased lung MAE by 15.3 ± 2.0, 1.4 ± 0.6, 2.2 ± 0.3, 4.2 ± 0.8, and 9.1 ± 1.6 HU, respectively. At the optimum settings identified per scanner, PCCT images exhibited lower lung and emphysema MAE than those of EICT scanners (by 2.6 ± 1.0 and 9.6 ± 3.4 HU, compared to EICT A, and by 4.8 ± 0.8 and 7.4 ± 2.3 HU, compared to EICT B). The accuracy of lung density measurements was correlated with subjects' mean lung density (p < 0.05), measured by PCCT at optimum setting under the conditions studied. Photon-counting CT demonstrated superior performance in density quantifications, with its influences of imaging parameters in line with energy-integrating CT scanners. The technology offers improvement in lung quantifications, thus demonstrating potential toward more objective assessment of respiratory conditions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Photon-counting computed tomography (PCCT) has recently emerged into clinical use; however, its optimum imaging protocols and added benefits remains unknown in terms of providing more accurate lung density quantification compared to energy-integrating computed tomography (EICT) scanners.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To systematically assess the performance of a clinical PCCT scanner for lung density quantifications and compare it against EICT.
METHODS
METHODS
This cross-sectional study involved a retrospective analysis of subjects scanned (August-December 2021) using a clinical PCCT system. The influence of altering reconstruction parameters was studied (reconstruction kernel, pixel size, slice thickness). A virtual CT dataset of anthropomorphic virtual subjects was acquired to demonstrate the correspondence of findings to clinical dataset, and to perform systematic imaging experiments, not possible using human subjects. The virtual subjects were imaged using a validated, scanner-specific CT simulator of a PCCT and two EICT (defined as EICT A and B) scanners. The images were evaluated using mean absolute error (MAE) of lung and emphysema density against their corresponding ground truth.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Clinical and virtual PCCT datasets showed similar trends, with sharper kernels and smaller voxel sizes increasing percentage of low-attenuation areas below -950 HU (LAA-950) by up to 15.7 ± 6.9% and 11.8 ± 5.5%, respectively. Under the conditions studied, higher doses, thinner slices, smaller pixel sizes, iterative reconstructions, and quantitative kernels with medium sharpness resulted in lower lung MAE values. While using these settings for PCCT, changes in the dose level (13 to 1.3 mGy), slice thickness (0.4 to 1.5 mm), pixel size (0.49 to 0.98 mm), reconstruction technique (70 keV-VMI to wFBP), and kernel (Qr48 to Qr60) increased lung MAE by 15.3 ± 2.0, 1.4 ± 0.6, 2.2 ± 0.3, 4.2 ± 0.8, and 9.1 ± 1.6 HU, respectively. At the optimum settings identified per scanner, PCCT images exhibited lower lung and emphysema MAE than those of EICT scanners (by 2.6 ± 1.0 and 9.6 ± 3.4 HU, compared to EICT A, and by 4.8 ± 0.8 and 7.4 ± 2.3 HU, compared to EICT B). The accuracy of lung density measurements was correlated with subjects' mean lung density (p < 0.05), measured by PCCT at optimum setting under the conditions studied.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Photon-counting CT demonstrated superior performance in density quantifications, with its influences of imaging parameters in line with energy-integrating CT scanners. The technology offers improvement in lung quantifications, thus demonstrating potential toward more objective assessment of respiratory conditions.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : R01HL155293
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : P41EB028744
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : R01EB001838
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2024 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Regan EA, Lynch DA, Curran-Everett D, et al. Clinical and radiologic disease in smokers with normal spirometry. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(9):1539-1549. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2735
Woodruff PG, Barr RG, Bleecker E, et al. Clinical significance of symptoms in smokers with preserved pulmonary function. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(19):1811-1821. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1505971
Flohr T, Petersilka M, Henning A, Ulzheimer S, Ferda J, Schmidt B. Photon-counting CT review. Phys Medica. 2020;79(September):126-136. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.10.030
Abadi E, Jadick G, Lynch DA, Segars WP, Samei E. Emphysema quantifications with CT scan. Chest. 2023;163(5):1084-1100. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2022.11.033
Lynch DA, MA Al-Qaisi. Quantitative computed tomography in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Thorac Imaging. 2013;28(5):284-290. doi:10.1097/RTI.0b013e318298733c
Gierada DS, Bierhals AJ, Choong CK, et al. Effects of CT section thickness and reconstruction kernel on emphysema quantification. Relationship to the magnitude of the CT emphysema index. Acad Radiol. 2010;17(2):146-156. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2009.08.007
Boedeker KL, McNitt-Gray MF, Rogers SR, et al. Emphysema: effect of reconstruction algorithm on CT imaging measures. Radiology. 2004;232(1):295-301. doi:10.1148/radiol.2321030383
Mets OM, De Jong PA, Van Ginneken B, Gietema HA, Lammers JWJ. Quantitative computed tomography in COPD: possibilities and limitations. Lung. 2012;190(2):133-145. doi:10.1007/s00408-011-9353-9
Bartel ST, Bierhals AJ, Pilgram TK, et al. Equating quantitative emphysema measurements on different CT image reconstructions. Med Phys. 2011;38(8):4894-4902. doi:10.1118/1.3615624
den Harder AM, de Boer E, Lagerweij SJ, et al. Emphysema quantification using chest CT: influence of radiation dose reduction and reconstruction technique. Eur Radiol Exp. 2018;2(1). doi:10.1186/s41747-018-0064-3
Kim H, Goo JM, Ohno Y, et al. Effect of reconstruction parameters on the quantitative analysis of chest computed tomography. J Thorac Imaging. 2019;34(2):92-102. doi:10.1097/RTI.0000000000000389
Abadi E, Segars WP, Tsui BMW, et al. Virtual clinical trials in medical imaging: a review. J Med Imaging. 2020;7(4):042805. doi:10.1117/1
Segars WP, Tsui BMW, Cai J, Yin FF, Fung GSK, Samei E. Application of the 4-D XCAT phantoms in biomedical imaging and beyond. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2018;37(3):680-692. doi:10.1109/TMI.2017.2738448
Segars WP, Sturgeon G, Mendonca S, Grimes J, Tsui BMW. 4D XCAT phantom for multimodality imaging research. Med Phys. 2010;37(9):4902-4915. doi:10.1118/1.3480985
Segars WP, Bond J, Frush J, et al. Population of anatomically variable 4D XCAT adult phantoms for imaging research and optimization. Med Phys. 2013;40(4). doi:10.1118/1.4794178
Abadi E, Sturgeon GM, Agasthya G, et al. Airways, vasculature, and interstitial tissue: anatomically informed computational modeling of human lungs for virtual clinical trials. Med Imaging 2017 Phys Med Imaging. 2017;10132:101321Q. doi:10.1117/12.2254739
Abadi E, Segars WP, Sturgeon GM, Roos JE, Ravin CE, Samei E. Modeling lung architecture in the XCAT series of phantoms: physiologically based airways, arteries and veins. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2018;37(3):693-702. doi:10.1109/TMI.2017.2769640
Abadi E, Harrawood B, Sharma S, Kapadia A, Segars WP, Samei E. DukeSim: a realistic, rapid, and scanner-specific simulation framework in computed tomography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2019;38(6):1457-1465. doi:10.1109/TMI.2018.2886530
Abadi E, Harrawood B, Rajagopal JR, et al. Development of a scanner-specific simulation framework for photon-counting computed tomography. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2019;5(5). doi:10.1088/2057-1976/ab37e9
Sharma S, Abadi E, Kapadia A, Segars WP, Samei E. A GPU-accelerated framework for rapid estimation of scanner-specific scatter in CT for virtual imaging trials. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66(7). doi:10.1088/1361-6560/abeb32
Sharma S, Kapadia A, Brown J, Segars WP, Bolch W, Samei E. A GPU-accelerated framework for individualized estimation of organ doses in digital tomosynthesis. Med Phys. 2022;49(2):891-900. doi:10.1002/mp.15400
Abadi E, McCabe C, Harrawood B, Sotoudeh-Paima S, Segars WP, Samei E. Development and clinical applications of a virtual imaging framework for optimizing photon-counting CT. 2022;(April):60. doi:10.1117/12.2612079
Shankar SS, Felice N, Hoffman EA, et al. Task-based validation and application of a scanner-specific CT simulator using an anthropomorphic phantom. Med Phys. 2022;49(12):7447-7457. doi:10.1002/mp.15967
Jadick G, Abadi E, Harrawood B, Sharma S, Segars WP, Samei E. A scanner-specific framework for simulating CT images with tube current modulation. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66(18). doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ac2269
Regan EA, Hokanson JE, Murphy JR, et al. Genetic Epidemiology of COPD (COPDGene) Study Design. COPD J Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis. 2011;7(1):32-43. doi:10.3109/15412550903499522
Bhattarai M, Bache S, Abadi E, Samei E. A systematic task-based image quality assessment of photon-counting and energy integrating CT as a function of reconstruction kernel and phantom size. Med Phys. 2023(December 2022):1-14. doi:10.1002/mp.16619
Ostridge K, Wilkinson TMA. Present and future utility of computed tomography scanning in the assessment and management of COPD. Eur Respir J. 2016;48(1):216-228. doi:10.1183/13993003.00041-2016
Mohamed Hoesein FA, de Jong PA. Automatic quantification of emphysema and airways disease on computed tomography. Breathe. 2016;12(1):79-81. doi:10.1183/20734735.013415
Mohamed Hoesein FAA, De Hoop B, Zanen P, et al. CT-quantified emphysema in male heavy smokers: association with lung function decline. Thorax. 2011;66(9):782-787. doi:10.1136/thx.2010.145995
Bankier AA, De Maertelaer V, Keyzer C, Gevenois PA. Pulmonary emphysema: subjective visual grading versus objective quantification with macroscopic morphometry and thin-section CT densitometry. Radiology. 1999;211(3):851-858. doi:10.1148/radiology.211.3.r99jn05851
Ghesu FC, Georgescu B, Zheng Y, et al. Multi-scale deep reinforcement learning for real-time 3D-Landmark detection in CT scans. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2019;41(1):176-189. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2017.2782687
Yang D, Xu D, Zhou SK, et al. Automatic liver segmentation using an adversarial image-to-image network. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention-MICCAI 2017: 20th International Conference, Proceedings, Part III20. Springer International Publishing, 2017;507-515. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-66179-7_58
Kratzke L, Mistry N, Möhler C, et al. DirectORGANS 2.0. https://www.siemens-healthineers.com/en-uk/radiotherapy/ct-for-rt/somatom-go-sim
Mascalchi M, Camiciottoli G, Diciotti S. Lung densitometry: why, how and when. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9(9):3319-3345. doi:10.21037/jtd.2017.08.17
Hatt CR, Oh AS, Obuchowski NA, Charbonnier JP, Lynch DA, Humphries SM. Comparison of CT lung density measurements between standard full-dose and reduced-dose protocols. Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging. 2021;3(2). doi:10.1148/ryct.2021200503
Yuan R, Mayo JR, Hogg JC, et al. The effects of radiation dose and CT manufacturer on measurements of lung densitometry. Chest. 2007;132(2):617-623. doi:10.1378/chest.06-2325
Sanders J, Hurwitz L, Samei E. Patient-specific quantification of image quality: an automated method for measuring spatial resolution in clinical CT images. Med Phys. 2016;43(10):5330-5338. doi:10.1118/1.4961984
Christianson O, Winslow J, Frush DP, Samei E. Automated technique to measure noise in clinical CT examinations. Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205(1):W93-W99. doi:10.2214/AJR.14.13613
Fishman A, Martinez F, Naunheim K, et al. A randomized trial comparing lung-volume-reduction surgery with medical therapy for severe emphysema. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(21):2059-2073. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa030287
Klooster K, ten Hacken NHT, Hartman JE, Kerstjens HAM, van Rikxoort EM, Slebos DJ. Endobronchial valves for emphysema without interlobar collateral ventilation. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(24):2325-2335. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1507807
Kemp SV, Slebos DJ, Kirk A, et al. A multicenter randomized controlled trial of zephyr endobronchial valve treatment in heterogeneous emphysema (Transform). Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;196(12):1535-1543. doi:10.1164/rccm.201707-1327OC
Criner GJ, Delage A, Voelker K, et al. Improving lung function in severe heterogenous Emphysema with the Spiration Valve System (EMPROVE) a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled clinical trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;200(11):1354-1362. doi:10.1164/rccm.201902-0383OC
Stolk J, Versteegh MIM, Montenij LJ, et al. Densitometry for assessment of effect of lung volume reduction surgery for emphysema. Eur Respir J. 2007;29(6):1138-1143. doi:10.1183/09031936.00056206