BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dual energy CT (DECT) imaging can provide both the electron density ρ(e) and effective atomic number Z(eff), thus facilitating tissue type identification. This paper investigates the accuracy of a dual source DECT scanner by means of measurements and simulations. Previous simulation work suggested improved Monte Carlo dose calculation accuracy when compared to single energy CT for low energy photon brachytherapy, but lacked validation. As such, we aim to validate our DECT simulation model in this work. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cylindrical phantom containing tissue mimicking inserts was scanned with a second generation dual source scanner (SOMATOM Definition FLASH) to obtain Z(eff) and ρ(e). A model of the scanner was designed in ImaSim, a CT simulation program, and was used to simulate the experiment. RESULTS: Accuracy of measured Z(eff) (labelled Z) was found to vary from -10% to 10% from low to high Z tissue substitutes while the accuracy on ρ(e) from DECT was about 2.5%. Our simulation reproduced the experiments within ±5% for both Z and ρ(e). CONCLUSIONS: A clinical DECT scanner was able to extract Z and ρ(e) of tissue substitutes. Our simulation tool replicates the experiments within a reasonable accuracy.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dual energy CT (DECT) imaging can provide both the electron density ρ(e) and effective atomic number Z(eff), thus facilitating tissue type identification. This paper investigates the accuracy of a dual source DECT scanner by means of measurements and simulations. Previous simulation work suggested improved Monte Carlo dose calculation accuracy when compared to single energy CT for low energy photon brachytherapy, but lacked validation. As such, we aim to validate our DECT simulation model in this work. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cylindrical phantom containing tissue mimicking inserts was scanned with a second generation dual source scanner (SOMATOM Definition FLASH) to obtain Z(eff) and ρ(e). A model of the scanner was designed in ImaSim, a CT simulation program, and was used to simulate the experiment. RESULTS: Accuracy of measured Z(eff) (labelled Z) was found to vary from -10% to 10% from low to high Z tissue substitutes while the accuracy on ρ(e) from DECT was about 2.5%. Our simulation reproduced the experiments within ±5% for both Z and ρ(e). CONCLUSIONS: A clinical DECT scanner was able to extract Z and ρ(e) of tissue substitutes. Our simulation tool replicates the experiments within a reasonable accuracy.
Authors: Ana Vaniqui; Lotte E J R Schyns; Isabel P Almeida; Brent van der Heyden; Mark Podesta; Frank Verhaegen Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-11-07 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Yothin Rakvongthai; William Worstell; Georges El Fakhri; Junguo Bian; Auranuch Lorsakul; Jinsong Ouyang Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2014-09-19 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Rafael Simon Maia; Christian Jacob; Amy K Hara; Alvin C Silva; William Pavlicek; Mitchell J Ross Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2014-05-11 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Lotte E J R Schyns; Isabel P Almeida; Stefan J van Hoof; Benedicte Descamps; Christian Vanhove; Guillaume Landry; Patrick V Granton; Frank Verhaegen Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-11-02 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Vasiliki Chatzaraki; Alessandra Bolsi; Rahel A Kubik-Huch; Bernhard Schmidt; Antony John Lomax; Damien C Weber; Michael Thali; Tilo Niemann Journal: In Vivo Date: 2022 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.155