Physical evaluation of an ultra-high-resolution CT scanner
Tóm tắt
To evaluate the technical performance of an ultra-high-resolution CT (UHRCT) system.
The physico-technical capabilities of a novel commercial UHRCT system were assessed and compared with those of a current-generation multi-detector (MDCT) system. The super-high-resolution (SHR) mode of the system uses 0.25 mm (at isocentre) detector elements (dels) in the in-plane and longitudinal directions, while the high-resolution (HR) mode bins two dels in the longitudinal direction. The normal-resolution (NR) mode bins dels 2 × 2, resulting in a del-size equivalent to that of the MDCT system. In general, standard procedures and phantoms were used to perform these assessments.
The UHRCT MTF (10% MTF 4.1 lp/mm) is twice as high as that of the MDCT (10% MTF 1.9 lp/mm), which is comparable to the MTF in the NR mode (10% MTF 1.7 lp/mm). The width of the slice sensitivity profile in the SHR mode (FWHM 0.45 mm) is about 60% of that of the MDCT (FWHM 0.77 mm). Uniformity and CT numbers are within the expected range. Noise in the high-resolution modes has a higher magnitude and higher frequency components compared with MDCT. Low-contrast visibility is lower for the NR, HR and SHR modes compared with MDCT, but about a 14%, for NR, and 23%, for HR and SHR, dose increase gives the same results.
HR and SHR mode scanning results in double the spatial resolution, with about a 23% increase in dose required to achieve the same low-contrast detectability.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Rybicki FJ, Otero HJ, Steigner ML et al (2008) Initial evaluation of coronary images from 320-detector row computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 24:535–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-008-9308-2
Duan X, Wang J, Leng S et al (2013) Electronic noise in CT detectors: impact on image noise and artifacts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:W626–W632. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10234
Hata A, Yanagawa M, Honda O et al (2018) Effect of matrix size on the image quality of ultra-high-resolution CT of the lung. Comparison of 512 × 512, 1024 × 1024, and 2048 × 2048. Acad Radiol 2048:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2017.11.017
Yoshioka K, Tanaka R, Takagi H et al (2017) Ultra-high-resolution CT angiography of the artery of Adamkiewicz: a feasibility study. Neuroradiology:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-017-1927-7
Meijer FJA, Schuijf JD, de Vries J, Boogaarts HD, van der Woude WJ, Prokop M (2019) Ultra-high-resolution subtraction CT angiography in the follow-up of treated intracranial aneurysms. Insights Imaging 10:4–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0685-y
Onishi H, Hori M, Ota T et al (2018) Phantom study of in-stent restenosis at high-spatial-resolution CT. Radiology 289:255–260. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018180188
Gupta R, Grasruck M, Suess C et al (2006) Ultra-high resolution flat-panel volume CT: fundamental principles, design architecture, and system characterization. Eur Radiol 16:1191–1205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0156-y
Gupta R, Cheung AC, Bartling SH et al (2008) Flat-panel volume CT: fundamental principles, technology, and applications. Radiographics 28:2009–2022. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.287085004
Greschus S, Kiessling F, Lichy MP et al (2005) Potential applications of flat-panel volumetric CT in morphologic, functional small animal imaging. Neoplasia 7:730–740. https://doi.org/10.1593/neo.05160
Ross W, Cody DD, Hazle JD (2006) Design and performance characteristics of a digital flat-panel computed tomography system. Med Phys 33:1888–1901. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2198941
Flohr TG, Stierstorfer K, Süss C, Schmidt B, Primak AN, McCollough CH (2007) Novel ultrahigh resolution data acquisition and image reconstruction for multi-detector row CT. Med Phys 34:1712–1723. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2722872
Imai Y, Nukui M, Ishihara Y et al (2009) Development and performance evaluation of an experimental fine pitch detector multislice CT scanner. Med Phys 36:1120–1127. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3086117
Leng S, Yu Z, Halaweish A et al (2016) Dose-efficient ultrahigh-resolution scan mode using a photon counting detector computed tomography system. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 3:043504. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.3.4.043504
Willemink MJ, Persson M, Pourmorteza A, Pelc NJ, Fleischmann D (2018) Photon-counting CT: technical principles and clinical prospects. Radiology 289:293–312. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018172656
The Phantom Laboratory (2014) Catphan 500 and 600 Manual. Available via https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/fys/nedlagte-emner/FYS4760/h07/Catphan500-600manual.pdf
American College of Radiology (ACR) (2017) Computed tomography: quality control. Available via https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/NOINDEX/QCManuals/CT_QCManual.pdf
Hara T, Ichikawa K, Sanada S, Ida Y (2010) Image quality dependence on in-plane positions and directions for MDCT images. Eur J Radiol 75:114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.03.060
Cruz-Bastida JP, Gomez-Cardona D, Li K et al (2016) Hi-res scan mode in clinical MDCT systems: experimental assessment of spatial resolution performance. Med Phys 43:2399–2409. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4946816
Rubert N, Szczykutowicz TP, Ranallo F (2016) Improvement in CT image resolution due to the use of focal spot deflection and increased sampling. J Appl Clin Med Phys 17:6039. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.6039
Kanal KM, Butler PF, Sengupta D, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Coombs LP, Morin RL (2017) U.S. diagnostic reference levels and achievable doses for 10 adult CT examinations. Radiology 284:120–133. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161911
Roch P, Célier D, Dessaud C, Etard C (2018) Using diagnostic reference levels to evaluate the improvement of patient dose optimisation and the influence of recent technologies in radiography and computed tomography. Eur J Radiol 98:68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.11.002