PURPOSE: To compare dual-energy computed tomography (CT) spectral imaging and conventional CT imaging in terms of precision of the measurement of CT numbers in phantoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A circular phantom (CP) and an elliptical phantom (EP) were used. Capsules filled with iodine contrast media solutions at various concentration levels were placed in the phantoms. Conventional CT was performed at a tube voltage of 120 kVp. Simulated monochromatic images at 65 keV were obtained by dual-energy CT spectral imaging. The CT number of each iodine capsule was measured. A linear regression model was used to evaluate linearity, while analysis of covariance was used to investigate the degree of variability according to phantom shape for each imaging method. RESULTS: With conventional imaging, the slopes of the regression lines for CT numbers measured at the EP center and EP periphery were significantly lower than those measured for CP (P < 0.0001 for both EP center vs. CP and for EP periphery vs. CP). No significant difference in slope was found among phantom shapes in dual-energy spectral CT imaging. CONCLUSION: Computed tomography numbers varied considerably depending on the phantom shape in conventional CT, whereas dual-energy CT provided consistent CT numbers regardless of the phantom shape.
PURPOSE: To compare dual-energy computed tomography (CT) spectral imaging and conventional CT imaging in terms of precision of the measurement of CT numbers in phantoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A circular phantom (CP) and an elliptical phantom (EP) were used. Capsules filled with iodine contrast media solutions at various concentration levels were placed in the phantoms. Conventional CT was performed at a tube voltage of 120 kVp. Simulated monochromatic images at 65 keV were obtained by dual-energy CT spectral imaging. The CT number of each iodine capsule was measured. A linear regression model was used to evaluate linearity, while analysis of covariance was used to investigate the degree of variability according to phantom shape for each imaging method. RESULTS: With conventional imaging, the slopes of the regression lines for CT numbers measured at the EP center and EP periphery were significantly lower than those measured for CP (P < 0.0001 for both EP center vs. CP and for EP periphery vs. CP). No significant difference in slope was found among phantom shapes in dual-energy spectral CT imaging. CONCLUSION: Computed tomography numbers varied considerably depending on the phantom shape in conventional CT, whereas dual-energy CT provided consistent CT numbers regardless of the phantom shape.
Authors: Joan P Heneghan; Audrey L Spielmann; Douglas H Sheafor; Mark A Kliewer; David M DeLong; Rendon C Nelson Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: C Thomas; O Patschan; D Ketelsen; I Tsiflikas; A Reimann; H Brodoefel; M Buchgeister; U Nagele; A Stenzl; C Claussen; A Kopp; M Heuschmid; H-P Schlemmer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-02-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Anno Graser; Thorsten R C Johnson; Markus Bader; Michael Staehler; Nicolas Haseke; Konstantin Nikolaou; Maximilian F Reiser; Christian G Stief; Christoph R Becker Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Yue Dong; Ai Jun Shi; Jian Lin Wu; Ru Xin Wang; Li Fei Sun; Ai Lian Liu; Yi Jun Liu Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2015-06-13 Impact factor: 3.134