OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate in phantoms the differences in CT image noise and artifact level between two types of commercial CT detectors: one with distributed electronics (conventional) and one with integrated electronics intended to decrease system electronic noise. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cylindric water phantoms of 20, 30, and 40 cm in diameter were scanned using two CT scanners, one equipped with integrated detector electronics and one with distributed detector electronics. All other scanning parameters were identical. Scans were acquired at four tube potentials and 10 tube currents. Semianthropomorphic phantoms were scanned to mimic the shoulder and abdominal regions. Images of two patients were also selected to show the clinical values of the integrated detector. RESULTS: Reduction of image noise with the integrated detector depended on phantom size, tube potential, and tube current. Scans that had low detected signal had the greatest reductions in noise, up to 40% for a 30-cm phantom scanned using 80 kV. This noise reduction translated into up to 50% in dose reduction to achieve equivalent image noise. Streak artifacts through regions of high attenuation were reduced by up to 45% on scans obtained using the integrated detector. Patient images also showed superior image quality for the integrated detector. CONCLUSION: For the same applied radiation level, the use of integrated electronics in a CT detector showed a substantially reduced level of electronic noise, resulting in reductions in image noise and artifacts, compared with detectors having distributed electronics.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate in phantoms the differences in CT image noise and artifact level between two types of commercial CT detectors: one with distributed electronics (conventional) and one with integrated electronics intended to decrease system electronic noise. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cylindric water phantoms of 20, 30, and 40 cm in diameter were scanned using two CT scanners, one equipped with integrated detector electronics and one with distributed detector electronics. All other scanning parameters were identical. Scans were acquired at four tube potentials and 10 tube currents. Semianthropomorphic phantoms were scanned to mimic the shoulder and abdominal regions. Images of two patients were also selected to show the clinical values of the integrated detector. RESULTS: Reduction of image noise with the integrated detector depended on phantom size, tube potential, and tube current. Scans that had low detected signal had the greatest reductions in noise, up to 40% for a 30-cm phantom scanned using 80 kV. This noise reduction translated into up to 50% in dose reduction to achieve equivalent image noise. Streak artifacts through regions of high attenuation were reduced by up to 45% on scans obtained using the integrated detector. Patient images also showed superior image quality for the integrated detector. CONCLUSION: For the same applied radiation level, the use of integrated electronics in a CT detector showed a substantially reduced level of electronic noise, resulting in reductions in image noise and artifacts, compared with detectors having distributed electronics.
Authors: Shuai Leng; Michael Bruesewitz; Shengzhen Tao; Kishore Rajendran; Ahmed F Halaweish; Norbert G Campeau; Joel G Fletcher; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Radiographics Date: 2019 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Rolf Symons; Amir Pourmorteza; Veit Sandfort; Mark A Ahlman; Tracy Cropper; Marissa Mallek; Steffen Kappler; Stefan Ulzheimer; Mahadevappa Mahesh; Elizabeth C Jones; Ashkan A Malayeri; Les R Folio; David A Bluemke Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-07-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: E Hammond; K S Chan; J C Ames; N Stoyles; C M Sloan; J Guo; J D Newell; E A Hoffman; J C Sieren Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Daniele Marin; Jose J Pratts-Emanuelli; Achille Mileto; Daniela B Husarik; Mustafa R Bashir; Rendon C Nelson; Daniel T Boll Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-10-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Stefano Young; Pechin Lo; Grace Kim; Matthew Brown; John Hoffman; William Hsu; Wasil Wahi-Anwar; Carlos Flores; Grace Lee; Frederic Noo; Jonathan Goldin; Michael McNitt-Gray Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Egon Burian; Nico Sollmann; Kai Mei; Michael Dieckmeyer; Daniela Juncker; Maximilian Löffler; Tobias Greve; Claus Zimmer; Jan S Kirschke; Thomas Baum; Peter B Noël Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-07