Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Ultra-high-resolution photon-counting detector computed tomography of the lungs: Phantom and clinical assessment of radiation dose and image quality.
Chamberlin, Jordan H; Smith, Carter D; Maisuria, Dhruw; Parrish, Joe; van Swol, Elizabeth; Mah, Eugene; Emrich, Tilman; Schoepf, U Joseph; Varga-Szemes, Akos; O'Doherty, Jim; Munden, Reginald F; Tipnis, Sameer V; Baruah, Dhiraj; Kabakus, Ismail M.
Afiliación
  • Chamberlin JH; Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Divisions of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Imaging, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29407, USA.
  • Smith CD; Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Divisions of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Imaging, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29407, USA.
  • Maisuria D; Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Divisions of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Imaging, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29407, USA.
  • Parrish J; Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Divisions of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Imaging, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29407, USA.
  • van Swol E; Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Divisions of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Imaging, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29407, USA.
  • Mah E; Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Medical Physics, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29407, USA.
  • Emrich T; Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Divisions of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Imaging, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29407, USA.
  • Schoepf UJ; Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Divisions of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Imaging, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29407, USA.
  • Varga-Szemes A; Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Divisions of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Imaging, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29407, USA.
  • O'Doherty J; Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Divisions of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Imaging, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29407, USA; Siemens Medical Solutions, Malvern, PA, USA.
  • Munden RF; Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Divisions of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Imaging, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29407, USA.
  • Tipnis SV; Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Medical Physics, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29407, USA.
  • Baruah D; Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Divisions of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Imaging, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29407, USA.
  • Kabakus IM; Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Divisions of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Imaging, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29407, USA. Electronic address: Kabakus@musc.edu.
Clin Imaging ; 104: 110008, 2023 Dec.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37862910
PURPOSE: Photon-counting-detector computed tomography (PCD-CT) offers enhanced noise reduction, spatial resolution, and image quality in comparison to energy-integrated-detectors CT (EID-CT). These hypothesized improvements were compared using PCD-CT ultra-high (UHR) and standard-resolution (SR) scan-modes. METHODS: Phantom scans were obtained with both EID-CT and PCD-CT (UHR, SR) on an adult body-phantom. Radiation dose was measured and noise levels were compared at a minimum achievable slice thickness of 0.5 mm for EID-CT, 0.2 mm for PCD-CT-UHR and 0.4 mm for PCD-CT-SR. Signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) were calculated for five tissue densities. Additionally, data from 25 patients who had PCD-CT of chest were reconstructed at 1 mm and 0.2 mm (UHR) slice-thickness and compared quantitatively (SNR) and qualitatively (noise, quality, sharpness, bone details). RESULTS: Phantom PCD-CT-UHR and PCD-CT-SR scans had similar measured radiation dose (16.0mGy vs 15.8 mGy). Phantom PCD-CT-SR (0.4 mm) had lower noise level in comparison to EID-CT (0.5 mm) (9.0HU vs 9.6HU). PCD-CT-UHR (0.2 mm) had slightly higher noise level (11.1HU). Phantom PCD-CT-SR (0.4 mm) had higher SNR in comparison to EID-CT (0.5 mm) while achieving higher resolution (Bone 115 vs 96, Acrylic 14 vs 14, Polyethylene 11 vs 10). SNR was slightly lower across all densities for PCD-CT UHR (0.2 mm). Interestingly, CNR was highest in the 0.2 mm PCD-CT group; PCD-CT CNR was 2.45 and 2.88 times the CNR for 0.5 mm EID-CT for acrylic and poly densities. Clinical comparison of SNR showed predictably higher SNR for 1 mm (30.3 ± 10.7 vs 14.2 ± 7, p = 0.02). Median subjective ratings were higher for 0.2 mm UHR vs 1 mm PCD-CT for nodule contour (4.6 ± 0.3 vs 3.6 ± 0.1, p = 0.02), bone detail (5 ± 0 vs 4 ± 0.1, p = 0.001), image quality (5 ± 0.1 vs 4.6 ± 0.4, p = 0.001), and sharpness (5 ± 0.1 vs 4 ± 0.2). CONCLUSION: Both UHR and SR PCD-CT result in similar radiation dose levels. PCD-CT can achieve higher resolution with lower noise level in comparison to EID-CT.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X / Fotones Límite: Adult / Humans Idioma: En Revista: Clin Imaging Asunto de la revista: DIAGNOSTICO POR IMAGEM Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X / Fotones Límite: Adult / Humans Idioma: En Revista: Clin Imaging Asunto de la revista: DIAGNOSTICO POR IMAGEM Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos