PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to validate the use of a calibration factor measured outside the object for estimating the iodine concentration inside the object to improve the accuracy of the quantitative contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Several known concentrations (0, 6, 9, and 12 mg I/ml) of iodine contrast material (CM) samples were placed inside and outside cylindrical acrylic phantoms of two sizes and were imaged under various combinations of the tube voltages and currents (kV/mAs-80/200, 100/200, 120/200, 140/200) to obtain K factors. The K factors were compared between the phantoms and among the tube voltages. Each CM concentration was estimated from the CT number using the K factor measured outside the phantom. RESULTS: The K factors varied between the phantoms or among the tube voltages (P < 0.05). Although there were statistically significant variations in K factors among the different regions in a phantom, the mean variation coefficient was 3%-4%. The mean error of the estimated concentration was -5.5%. CONCLUSION: The CM concentration should be accurately estimated at the region within a patient's body using the K factor measured at the surface of the body regardless of body size and tube voltage.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to validate the use of a calibration factor measured outside the object for estimating the iodine concentration inside the object to improve the accuracy of the quantitative contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Several known concentrations (0, 6, 9, and 12 mg I/ml) of iodine contrast material (CM) samples were placed inside and outside cylindrical acrylic phantoms of two sizes and were imaged under various combinations of the tube voltages and currents (kV/mAs-80/200, 100/200, 120/200, 140/200) to obtain K factors. The K factors were compared between the phantoms and among the tube voltages. Each CM concentration was estimated from the CT number using the K factor measured outside the phantom. RESULTS: The K factors varied between the phantoms or among the tube voltages (P < 0.05). Although there were statistically significant variations in K factors among the different regions in a phantom, the mean variation coefficient was 3%-4%. The mean error of the estimated concentration was -5.5%. CONCLUSION: The CM concentration should be accurately estimated at the region within a patient's body using the K factor measured at the surface of the body regardless of body size and tube voltage.
Authors: Marilyn J Siegel; Bernhard Schmidt; David Bradley; Christoph Suess; Charles Hildebolt Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-09-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Karl Degenhardt; Alexander C Wright; Debra Horng; Arun Padmanabhan; Jonathan A Epstein Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-02-27 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Cheng Yang; Walter M Stadler; Gregory S Karczmar; Michael Milosevic; Ivan Yeung; Masoom A Haider Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 4.668